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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'disable' operation (implying a state change/mutation) but provides no information about permissions required, whether the action is reversible, what happens to associated data, or any rate limits/constraints. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 main purpose, but the parameter documentation is minimal and could be more efficiently integrated. The two-sentence structure is acceptable but not optimally concise given the lack of detail.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'disable' means operationally, what the expected outcome is, error conditions, or how this differs from deletion/enabling. The context signals indicate this tool needs much more comprehensive documentation.

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 only titles and types. The description lists the two parameters but adds minimal semantic value—it doesn't explain what an 'instance ID' or 'project ID' represents, their format constraints, or where to find them. This doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Disable') and the target resource ('a controls instance'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from its sibling 'disable_analytics_instance' or explain what 'disable' means operationally in this context.

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 like 'delete_controls_instance' or 'enable_controls_instance'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, consequences, or typical use cases for disabling versus other actions.

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