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. While 'Update' implies a mutation operation, the description doesn't address critical behavioral aspects: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens when only some fields are provided, rate limits, or error conditions. The description merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful behavioral context.

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 concise with a clear header followed by parameter explanations. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the 'Args:' section formatting could be more integrated with the main description text.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 4 parameters (2 required), 0% schema coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it should provide more behavioral context for a write operation. The description covers the basics but leaves significant gaps in usage and behavioral understanding.

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?

The description lists all 4 parameters with brief explanations, but with 0% schema description coverage, this only partially compensates. The explanations are minimal ('New description', 'New unit string') and don't provide format requirements, constraints, or the implications of null values. While better than nothing, this doesn't fully address the schema coverage gap.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('datapoint details'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other update tools in the sibling list (like update_project, update_task, update_analytics_instance), which prevents a perfect score.

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, when this operation is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from other datapoint-related tools like delete_datapoint or get_datapoint. 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.