Amazing Marvin MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a creation operation but doesn't mention what permissions are required, whether this is a write operation (implied but not explicit), what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. The description is minimal and lacks important behavioral context.

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 at just 6 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't include any unnecessary elaboration. This is an example of appropriate brevity for a simple tool.

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 there's an output schema (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain what the tool returns. However, for a creation tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description is too minimal - it doesn't provide enough context about the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or differentiation from sibling tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for all 3 parameters, the description provides no information about what 'title', 'project_type', or 'debug' mean or how they should be used. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema, leaving all parameters semantically undefined.

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 ('Create') and resource ('new project in Amazing Marvin'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from the sibling tool 'create_project_with_tasks', which suggests a similar creation operation but with additional functionality.

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 like 'create_project_with_tasks' or 'batch_create_tasks'. There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases for creating a standalone project versus one with tasks.

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