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. It indicates a destructive action ('Delete') and a confirmation requirement, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether deletion is reversible, what happens to associated data, or rate limits. This is insufficient for a high-stakes mutation tool.

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 action, followed by a brief explanation of the confirmation requirement and parameter details. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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 destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks critical behavioral details like error handling or side effects, which are essential for safe use.

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 explains both parameters: 'project_id' as 'The project's numeric ID' and 'project_name' as 'The project name (for confirmation),' adding clear meaning beyond the schema's basic types. However, it doesn't detail 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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a project'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling deletion tools like 'delete_project_comment' or 'delete_project_component', which would be needed for 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 mentions 'Requires confirmation via the project name,' which provides some usage context but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_project_component' or 'delete_project_timeseries.' No explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is given.

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