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 a project's details' implies a mutation operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are partial or complete, what happens with null values, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 brief with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. The Args section is well-structured but could be more integrated with the main description. No wasted sentences, though the formatting could be slightly more polished.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks important context about permissions, side effects, and error handling that would be needed for safe agent use.

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. The Args section lists all three parameters (project_id, name, description) and indicates name and description can be null, adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain constraints like project_id format or name/description length limits.

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 ('a project's details'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other update tools like update_analytics_instance or update_controls_instance in the sibling list, 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 like create_project or delete_project, nor does it mention prerequisites or context for when updates are appropriate. The Args section documents parameters but doesn't constitute usage guidance.

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