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 it mentions that updates include 'approval/rejection', it fails to specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., notifications), or rate limits. For a mutation tool with 15 parameters and no annotations, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('Update an existing time off request') and adds a clarifying parenthetical. Every part of the description earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (15 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances like how partial updates work or interactions with sibling tools. For a tool that modifies time-off requests—a sensitive operation—more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 15 parameters. Since the schema fully documents each parameter's purpose and format, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's completeness.

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 request'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'approve-timeoff' or 'reject-timeoff', which are more specific operations, nor does it mention other update-related tools (e.g., 'update-person', 'update-project'). This lack of sibling distinction prevents a perfect score.

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 timeoff_id), compare it to 'create-timeoff' for new requests, or clarify its role relative to 'approve-timeoff' and 'reject-timeoff' for status changes. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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