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. 'Updates a task' implies a mutation operation but provides no information about permissions required, whether updates are partial or complete, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with 13 parameters and no 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 that directly states the tool's purpose. There's zero wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While it may be too brief for other dimensions, for conciseness alone, it's perfectly efficient.

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 the complexity (13 parameters, mutation operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. A task update tool with numerous fields needs more context about what can be updated, how updates work, what permissions are required, and what the response contains. The current description leaves too many open questions for effective tool 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?

The schema description coverage is high at 85%, providing good documentation for most parameters. The 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 is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 'タスクを更新します' (Updates a task) clearly states the verb and resource, making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_project' or 'update_task_comment' - it's a generic update statement without specifying what distinguishes task updates from other update operations in the system.

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's no mention of prerequisites (like needing to identify a task first), when this should be used instead of creating a new task, or how it differs from other update operations in the sibling tool list. The agent receives no contextual usage information.

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