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 task' implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information about permissions required, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields. The mention of 'JSON string with fields to update' hints at partial updates but doesn't clarify behavior.

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 with the core purpose. The two-sentence structure with parameter explanations is efficient. However, the 'Args:' section formatting is slightly redundant with the schema but still concise overall.

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 there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. For a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more about permissions, side effects, or error handling.

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 provides meaningful context for both parameters: 'task_id: The task ID' clarifies the identifier type, and 'task_data: JSON string with fields to update (title, description, status, etc.)' explains the format and provides examples of updatable fields. This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Update a task' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's overly generic. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_project' or 'update_user' beyond specifying the resource type. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what aspects of a task can be updated.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing task), comparison to similar tools (like 'create_task' or 'delete_task'), or any contextual constraints. 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.