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. 'Update company details' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or any rate limits. It mentions parameters but not the tool's overall behavior or effects.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first line states the purpose clearly, followed by parameter explanations. There's no wasted text. However, the structure with 'Args:' is slightly redundant since parameters are documented in the schema, though it adds clarity in this case.

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 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and details on optionality. It meets baseline completeness but has clear gaps for a mutation 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by explaining that 'name' is the 'New company name' and 'description' is the 'New company description', clarifying these are update values rather than identifiers. However, it doesn't address that both parameters are optional (default: null) or provide format constraints.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('company details'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'update_project' or 'update_user' by specifying 'company' as the target resource. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of 'company details' are updated beyond the parameters mentioned.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing company ID or permissions), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'update_project' or 'update_user'. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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