Aedifion 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. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: what permissions are required, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on failure, what the response contains, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the parameter descriptions could be slightly more detailed given the 0% schema coverage. The formatting with 'Args:' section is helpful for readability.

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, 3 parameters (2 required), and an output schema exists, the description does an adequate but incomplete job. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and doesn't leverage the existence of an output schema to explain what the tool returns. For a create operation, more context about the created resource would be helpful.

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 explicitly lists and briefly describes all three parameters (project_id, title, description), adding meaningful context beyond the schema. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this parameter documentation in the description is essential and well-executed, though it could provide more detail about format constraints or examples.

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 ('Create a new task') and the target resource ('in a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_project' or 'assign_task' beyond the obvious resource difference, 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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project), comparison to similar tools like 'create_project' or 'update_task', or any context about when this operation is appropriate versus when other task-related tools might be better suited.

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