Repsona 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. It discloses the destructive nature ('削除します' - delete) and the authorization requirement. However, it doesn't mention whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what happens to related data, rate limits, or error conditions. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is moderately informative but incomplete.

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 a single, efficient Japanese sentence that communicates the core functionality and key constraint. Every word serves a purpose with zero wasted text. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides the essential 'what' and a key constraint, but lacks details about behavioral consequences, return values, or error handling. Given the complexity of file deletion operations, this is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's full behavior.

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 100% with the single parameter 'hash' documented as 'ファイルハッシュ' (file hash). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. With high schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('削除します' - delete) and resource ('ファイル' - file) with a specific identifier ('ファイルハッシュ' - file hash). It distinguishes from other deletion tools like delete_project_note or delete_task by specifying it's for files, but doesn't explicitly contrast with similar file operations like detach_file.

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 important contextual guidance about when to use this tool: 'アップロードしたユーザーのみ' (only the user who uploaded it). This indicates an authorization constraint. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like detach_file for different file operations.

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