Aedifion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it notes the instance_config is a 'JSON string with fields to update' (indicating partial updates are possible), it lacks critical mutation details: no mention of idempotency, required permissions, error conditions, side effects on existing configurations, or what happens to unspecified fields.

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 Args-docstring format is structured and concise, avoiding verbosity. However, the three parameter descriptions waste space stating the obvious ('The instance ID') rather than providing rich examples or constraints, slightly missing the mark for 'every sentence earns its place' in a 0% schema coverage context.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is inadequate. It fails to specify valid fields within instance_config, constraints on updates, or even clarify what constitutes a 'controls instance' despite having many sibling tools in the controls domain.

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%, requiring the description to compensate. It provides minimal semantic value: 'The instance ID' and 'The project's numeric ID' merely restate parameter names, though 'JSON string with fields to update' adds meaningful type/format context for instance_config that the raw schema (type: string) lacks. Sufficient to avoid a lower score but far from comprehensive.

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 'Update a controls instance' is a direct tautology of the tool name (update_controls_instance). It fails to specify what distinguishes this update operation from sibling tools like create_controls_instance, delete_controls_instance, or enable_controls_instance.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_controls_instance for new instances) or prerequisites (e.g., whether the instance must exist first). The description is purely definitional with no contextual usage hints.

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