Repsona 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. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't mention permanence, reversibility, permissions required, error conditions, or what happens to related data. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like permanence, side effects, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity and risk profile of a deletion operation, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (projectId and noteId) with their descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what's in the schema, so 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 verb ('削除します' - delete) and resource ('プロジェクト内のノート' - note within a project), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like delete_project_note_comment or delete_task, but the resource specificity is sufficient for clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like archive_all_inbox or delete_task, nor are prerequisites or constraints mentioned. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected.

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