Aedifion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, what happens to associated data, or what the response looks like. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.

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 explanations. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information. However, the 'Args:' section formatting is slightly redundant with the schema but still adds value given the 0% schema coverage.

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 there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and only 2 parameters with basic semantics covered, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a destructive operation with no safety annotations, it should ideally include more about consequences, permissions, or error conditions to be fully complete.

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 for both parameters ('project's numeric ID' and 'component-in-project ID'), which helps understand what each ID represents. However, it doesn't provide format details, constraints, or examples, leaving some ambiguity about valid values.

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 ('Remove') and target ('a component from a project'), providing specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_project' (whole project) and 'delete_project_tag' (different resource), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'delete_project_component' vs 'delete_project_comment' beyond the resource name.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_project' or 'delete_project_tag'. The description provides basic function but no context about prerequisites, permissions needed, or when this operation is appropriate versus other deletion operations in the sibling list.

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