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 of behavioral disclosure. While '削除します' clearly indicates a destructive operation, the description doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, what happens to associated data, or what the response looks like. For a destructive operation 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 extremely concise - a single Japanese sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and doesn't waste any space on redundant 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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address critical contextual information like permissions needed, whether the operation is reversible, error conditions, or what happens upon successful deletion. The description should provide more guidance about this potentially destructive operation.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (projectId and taskCommentId) clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the 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 resource ('指定したタスクのコメント' - specified task's comment), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_project_note_comment' or 'delete_project_note', which perform similar deletion operations on different resources.

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. There are multiple deletion tools in the sibling list (delete_file, delete_project_note, delete_project_note_comment, delete_task), but the description doesn't explain when this specific comment deletion tool is appropriate or what prerequisites might be needed.

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