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. It states the tool updates comments but doesn't disclose behavioral traits: whether this requires specific permissions, if it overwrites or appends to existing comments, what happens on failure, or any 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. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words or 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the update entails (e.g., full replacement vs. partial edit), success/failure behaviors, or return values. Given the complexity of updating data and lack of structured context, more detail is needed for adequate agent guidance.

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 three parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no context on parameter relationships or constraints). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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' - update) and the target resource ('プロジェクト内のノートのコメント' - note comments within a project). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_project_note_comment' and 'delete_project_note_comment' by specifying the update operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_project_note' or 'update_task_comment', which reduces specificity.

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 (e.g., needing an existing comment), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'update_project_note' or 'update_task_comment'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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