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 only states the action ('Enable') without explaining what enabling entails (e.g., starts processing, activates features), whether it requires specific permissions, if it's reversible via 'disable_analytics_instance', or what side effects might occur. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation tool.

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. The two-sentence structure with a clear Args section is efficient. However, the second sentence ('Args: instance_id: The instance ID.') is tautological and adds no value beyond repeating the parameter name.

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, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which helps but doesn't compensate), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context, parameter meaning, usage guidance, and doesn't leverage the sibling tool context. The presence of an output schema slightly helps but doesn't address the core gaps in understanding what this tool actually does.

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 adds parameter names but no meaningful semantics - it doesn't explain what an 'instance_id' or 'project_id' represents, how to obtain them, or their relationship. For two required parameters with zero schema documentation, this minimal description is insufficient.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Enable an analytics instance', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'enable_controls_instance' or explain what enabling an analytics instance means in this specific context. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation from similar tools.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing a disabled instance), what happens after enabling, or when to choose this over similar tools like 'enable_controls_instance'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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