float-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation, the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or error conditions. It also doesn't clarify the relationship between 'task' and 'allocation' or what an 'allocation' entails, leaving behavioral aspects unclear.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with just one phrase, making it front-loaded and efficient. However, it's arguably too brief for a tool with 13 parameters and no annotations, as it leaves critical context unexplained (e.g., the 'allocation' part). Every word earns its place, but more detail might be warranted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (13 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's scope (task vs. allocation), behavioral traits, or usage context. For a mutation tool with rich parameters and no structured safety hints, the description should provide more guidance on permissions, side effects, and expected outcomes.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with all 13 parameters well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the 'allocation' aspect or dependencies between parameters. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('an existing task/allocation'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate between 'task' and 'allocation' or explain what an 'allocation' is, and it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar update tools like 'update-allocation' or 'update-project-task' in the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing task ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'update-allocation' or 'update-project-task' that might handle similar resources.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.