CDP MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) and mentions the HTTP method (PUT), but fails to disclose critical traits: whether it requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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—two sentences that directly state the tool's function and parameter format. Every word earns its place: the first sentence defines the action and resource, while the second specifies the parameter requirement. There's no fluff or redundancy, 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?

Given the tool's complexity (mutation operation), lack of annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the tool as an update operation and specifies the parameter format, but fails to cover behavioral aspects, parameter details, or usage context. The presence of an output schema (per context signals) means return values are documented elsewhere, slightly mitigating the incompleteness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions that 'body' should be 'the updated erasure request body as a JSON string', which adds some meaning beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. However, it doesn't explain the structure of the JSON, what fields are updatable, or the purpose of 'tenant_id' (optional tenant context). With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, this partial guidance is insufficient.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing data erasure request'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cdp_request_data_erasure' (create) and 'cdp_delete_data_erasure_request' (delete) by focusing on modification. However, it doesn't specify what aspects can be updated (e.g., status, metadata), which 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 request ID), compare it to 'cdp_data_erasure_status_override' (a sibling that might handle status changes), or indicate when not to use it (e.g., for creating new requests). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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