Repsona MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if deletion is permanent/reversible, requires specific permissions, affects related data (e.g., comments), or has rate limits. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could benefit from more detail given the tool's destructive nature.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like deletion behavior, error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity of deletion operations and rich sibling tools, more guidance is needed for safe and effective 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 100%, with both parameters (projectId and taskId) documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond implying task deletion requires these IDs. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'タスクを削除します' (deletes a task) clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (task), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like delete_file, delete_project_note, or delete_task_comment. It doesn't specify if this is a soft/hard deletion or what happens to subtasks.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like archive_all_inbox or update_task for status changes. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing task existence) or exclusions (e.g., not for bulk deletion). The description is purely functional without context.

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