Binalyze AIR MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'creates a new policy' without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this requires admin permissions, what happens on conflict (e.g., duplicate names), if changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a creation tool with complex nested parameters, this is inadequate.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and key settings involved.

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 creation tool with 6 parameters (including complex nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the policy's purpose in the system, what 'evidence' refers to, how policies are used, or what happens after creation. The agent lacks context to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter filling.

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%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning 'storage and compression settings', which loosely maps to 'saveTo' and 'compression' parameters but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'policy', specifying it's for 'storage and compression settings'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_policy' or 'delete_policy_by_id' by focusing on creation, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'create_case' or 'create_organization' in terms of purpose.

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, dependencies, or when to choose this over other policy-related tools like 'update_policy' or 'get_policy_by_id'. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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