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. While '削除します' clearly indicates a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects related data, or what happens on success/failure. 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 Japanese sentence that directly states the tool's function without any unnecessary words or elaboration. It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space.

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 is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion, whether there are confirmation prompts, what the return value might be, or any error conditions. The tool's complexity (permanent deletion) warrants more complete disclosure than provided.

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 both parameters clearly documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (projectId and noteCommentId). According to guidelines, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in description.

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 the target resource ('プロジェクト内のノートのコメント' - project note comment), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling deletion tools like delete_project_note or delete_task_comment, but the specificity of the resource is sufficient for basic understanding.

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 delete_project_note or delete_task_comment, nor does it mention any prerequisites or contextual constraints. It simply states what the tool does without usage context.

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