Repsona MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. '更新します' (updates) implies a mutation operation, but the description doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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. There's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a basic update operation.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'updating' entails (partial vs. full updates), what values are returned, error handling, or how it interacts with other project-related tools. The agent lacks context needed for reliable invocation.

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 all parameters documented in the schema itself (projectId, name, fullName, purpose). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format constraints, validation rules, or examples. With high schema coverage, 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 '指定したプロジェクトを更新します' (Updates the specified project) clearly states the verb ('更新します' - updates) and resource ('プロジェクト' - project), providing basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling update tools like update_project_note, update_task, or update_user_role, nor does it specify what aspects of a project can be updated beyond the generic term.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing an existing project ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from other update operations in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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