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 the action is 'Delete,' implying a destructive, irreversible operation, but doesn't elaborate on permissions required, side effects (e.g., data loss), confirmation steps, or error conditions. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by parameter explanations. It avoids unnecessary words, though the parameter section could be integrated more seamlessly. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 destructive nature, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks critical behavioral details like permissions, irreversibility, or error handling. For a deletion tool, this is adequate but leaves safety and operational gaps that could hinder correct usage.

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 no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics by naming the parameters ('instance_id' and 'project_id') and briefly explaining them, but doesn't clarify format expectations (e.g., where to find these IDs), constraints, or relationships between parameters. This provides marginal value over the bare schema, compensating partially but not fully for the coverage gap.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('analytics instance'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'disable_analytics_instance' by specifying permanent removal rather than temporary deactivation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools (e.g., 'delete_controls_instance'), leaving some sibling differentiation incomplete.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'disable_analytics_instance' or other deletion tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the instance must be stopped first), consequences, or typical scenarios for deletion versus disabling. This leaves the agent without clear decision-making criteria.

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