Aedifion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or returns confirmation. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, but the Args section is redundant with the schema and adds little value. The structure is acceptable but not optimal—it could integrate parameter context more efficiently.

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?

For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context: behavioral details (permanence, side effects), usage prerequisites, and parameter meanings. The agent is left guessing about critical aspects of tool invocation.

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 minimal semantics by naming the parameters ('instance_id', 'project_id') but doesn't explain what they represent (e.g., that 'instance_id' identifies the controls instance to delete, or that 'project_id' specifies the containing project). It fails to compensate 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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a controls instance'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_analytics_instance' or 'disable_controls_instance'—the agent must infer that this is a permanent deletion versus a disable operation.

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_controls_instance' or 'delete_analytics_instance'. The description lacks prerequisites, such as whether the instance must be stopped first or if deletion is irreversible.

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