Aedifion MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fails to disclose whether enabling is reversible, if there are side effects, latency, or specific permission requirements. The mutation nature is implied but not explicit.

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?

Brief and front-loaded, but the Args section repeats information that should ideally live in the schema (though description correctly compensates for empty schema). No wasted sentences, but parameter descriptions are tautological.

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 state-changing operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It lacks error conditions, success indicators, or state transition details required to safely invoke the tool.

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 has 0% description coverage. The Args section provides minimal mapping ('The instance ID', 'The project's numeric ID'), which adds slight value beyond the schema titles, though 'numeric ID' for project_id is the only substantive addition.

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?

States the specific verb (enable) and resource (controls instance), but merely restates the tool name without explaining what 'enabling' entails (e.g., activation, starting, making available) or how it differs from 'create' or 'update' siblings.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like create_controls_instance or disable_controls_instance, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., instance must exist and be disabled first).

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