Repsona MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether changes are reversible, permission requirements, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic update operation, though it could be more front-loaded with key details if expanded. No structural issues are present.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values, which are critical for an update operation. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context is lacking 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 all parameters documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, constraints, or usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 clearly states the action ('更新します' - updates) and target resource ('指定したプロジェクト内のノート' - notes within a specified project). It distinguishes this as an update operation rather than creation or deletion, which is evident from sibling tools like create_project_note and delete_project_note. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the note can be updated beyond the general concept.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing project and note IDs), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new notes), or refer to sibling tools like update_project_note_comment for related operations. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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