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. '更新します' (updates) implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 phrase. While appropriately sized for what it communicates, it's arguably under-specified rather than efficiently concise. Every word earns its place, but the description doesn't provide enough information to be genuinely helpful to an AI agent.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a minimal description, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'my information' encompasses, what the update operation affects, what permissions are required, or what the tool returns. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall contextual information is insufficient for a mutation 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 input schema has 100% description coverage with clear Japanese descriptions for all three parameters (name, fullName, whatAreYouDoing). The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score 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 '自分の情報を更新します' (updates my information) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update_me' in Japanese. While it indicates a general action (update) and target (my information), it lacks specificity about what 'my information' entails or how this differs from sibling tools like 'update_user_role' or other update operations. The description doesn't clearly distinguish this tool's unique purpose within the context of the provided sibling tools.

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 update-related sibling tools (update_project, update_task, update_user_role, etc.), but the description doesn't indicate that this tool specifically updates the current user's profile information versus other entities. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned.

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