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 but only states the action ('Delete') without disclosing behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, affects related data (e.g., comments), or has confirmation steps. It misses critical context for a destructive 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 brief and front-loaded with the core action, followed by a simple parameter list. It avoids unnecessary words, though the 'Args' formatting is slightly redundant given the schema. Overall, it's efficient but could be more integrated.

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 tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and parameter but lacks behavioral details, error handling, or output expectations, leaving gaps for safe agent 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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that names the parameter ('task_id'), but schema description coverage is 0%, and it doesn't add meaning beyond the schema (e.g., format examples, source of ID, or validation rules). With one parameter and no schema descriptions, baseline is 3 as it minimally documents the parameter.

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 task'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_project' or 'delete_task_comment' by specifying the task resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 (e.g., 'update_task' for marking as completed vs. deletion, or 'delete_project' for broader removal). The description lacks context about prerequisites, permissions, or irreversible consequences, offering minimal usage direction.

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