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. It states the tool performs a deletion (destructive action) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The mention of 'Args' adds some structure but no behavioral details.

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 purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'Args' section. It's appropriately sized with no redundant information, though the 'Args' labeling is slightly informal compared to standard MCP conventions.

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 has an output schema (not provided in details), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, as a destructive operation with no annotations and 2 parameters, the description lacks completeness in behavioral context (e.g., permissions, side effects) and parameter details, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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 by naming the parameters ('task_id', 'comment_id') and indicating they are IDs, but doesn't explain format, constraints, or examples. This partially compensates but leaves gaps, meeting the baseline for minimal documentation.

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 a comment from a task') with specific resources (comment, task). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_project_comment' by specifying 'task' context, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other deletion tools like 'delete_task' or '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 is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing specific permissions), error conditions, or when other tools like 'delete_project_comment' might be more appropriate. It only states the basic function without context.

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