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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'purge data and uninstall' which implies destructive operations, but fails to describe critical behavioral aspects: what data gets purged, whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what happens to filtered assets. This is inadequate for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second highlights a key requirement. There's no unnecessary verbiage or repetition.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'purge data' entails, what the consequences are, what gets returned, or how this differs from the simpler 'uninstall_assets' sibling. The combination of destructive nature and lack of structured metadata requires more comprehensive description.

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%, providing comprehensive parameter documentation. The description adds minimal value by emphasizing the 'includedEndpointIds' requirement, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('purge data and uninstall') and resource ('specific assets'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'uninstall_assets' which appears to be a simpler version without the purge component, missing an opportunity for clear sibling distinction.

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 minimal guidance by stating 'Requires specifying filter.includedEndpointIds', which is a parameter requirement rather than usage context. It offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'uninstall_assets' or other asset management tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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