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 this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response contains. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 Args section is structured but overly terse. While efficient, it sacrifices clarity for brevity, making it somewhat under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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's complexity (mutation with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an analytics instance is, what fields are updatable, or error handling. However, an output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, slightly mitigating the gap.

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 documentation. The description lists parameters with brief labels but doesn't explain their meaning, formats, or constraints. For example, it doesn't clarify what 'instance_config' should contain (JSON structure, valid fields) or how 'instance_id' and 'project_id' relate. This leaves critical gaps for a 3-parameter tool.

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 purpose ('Update an analytics instance') which is clear but vague. It specifies the verb and resource but doesn't explain what an 'analytics instance' is or what fields can be updated. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_controls_instance' or 'update_project' 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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing instance), error conditions, or relationship to sibling tools like 'create_analytics_instance' or 'delete_analytics_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.