Aedifion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an 'Add' operation (implying creation/mutation) but provides no information about side effects, permissions required, whether comments are editable/deletable, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The existence of 'delete_project_comment' as a sibling suggests comments can be removed, but this isn't mentioned in the description.

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 appropriately brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the parameter documentation uses basic formatting rather than integrated prose. There's no wasted text, but the parameter section feels somewhat disconnected from the main description.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema present, the description provides the minimum viable information. It states what the tool does and documents the two parameters at a basic level. However, for a write operation that likely requires specific permissions and has behavioral implications, more context about success conditions, error cases, and relationship to other comment operations would be valuable.

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 schema provides only basic type information. The description adds minimal parameter context: it clarifies that 'project_id' is 'numeric' (though the schema already shows integer type) and that 'text' contains 'Comment text.' This doesn't provide format requirements, length limits, or examples. For a mutation tool with zero schema description coverage, this is insufficient compensation.

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 ('Add a comment') and target resource ('to a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_task_comment' by specifying the project context, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'add_project_component' or 'add_project_tag' which operate on the same resource type.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for adding comments to projects, it doesn't mention when to choose this over 'add_task_comment' (for tasks) or how it relates to 'get_project_comments' (for reading comments). There's no information about prerequisites, permissions needed, or typical use cases.

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