float-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, it fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing data not mentioned in parameters, or what the response looks like (success/failure indicators). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Update an existing time off type') and avoids unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects), usage guidance, and any indication of return values or error handling. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but other critical aspects are undocumented.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly documented (e.g., 'active' explained as '1=active, 0=archived'). The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 time off type'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create-time-off-type' (creation) and 'delete-time-off-type' (deletion), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update-timeoff' (which handles time off requests rather than types).

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 time off type ID), compare with similar tools (like 'create-time-off-type' for new types), or specify appropriate contexts (e.g., administrative settings vs. user-facing actions).

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