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 states the action is 'Delete', implying a destructive mutation, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens to associated data. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent operation.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of parameters with essential details. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose language, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity (destructive operation with 4 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., safety, permissions) and doesn't explain when to use it versus siblings. The output schema existence means return values needn't be described, but overall completeness is limited.

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 includes an 'Args' section that lists all four parameters with brief explanations, adding meaningful context beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). It clarifies that 'project_id' is numeric, 'datapoint_id' is an identifier, and 'start'/'end' use ISO 8601 format, though it doesn't detail default behaviors (e.g., null values meaning 'all time').

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 target resource ('timeseries data for a datapoint'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_datapoint' or 'delete_project', which might handle broader deletions, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for cleaning up specific time ranges versus deleting all data, or how it relates to siblings like 'delete_datapoint' (which might remove the datapoint entirely) or 'write_project_timeseries' (which could overwrite data).

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