molt-mcp

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds in disclosing critical behavior: the workspace is encrypted, and keys are displayed only once (flagged as 'IMPORTANT'). However, it omits details on failure modes, idempotency, or permissions required for the entries parameter keys.

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 efficiently structured with clear information hierarchy: purpose statement, return value summary, critical warning (front-loaded), then detailed Args documentation. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with no redundant filler.

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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately summarizes returns (workspace ID and keys) without redundancy. It adequately documents the 2 parameters despite poor schema coverage and warns about the irreversible key disclosure. Minor gaps remain regarding error handling and duplicate name behavior.

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, the description fully compensates by documenting both parameters in the Args section. It adds crucial semantic constraints for 'entries' (specifying required fields: type with allowed values 'md'/'workspace', id as UUID, and key types) that the loose schema (additionalProperties: string) fails to capture.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('workspace'), immediately clarifying the tool creates encrypted containers for bundling documents. The 'encrypted' and 'bundle multiple documents' qualifiers effectively distinguish this from create_doc and other sibling tools.

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?

While the description explains what the tool does (bundling documents), it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over create_doc or when to use update_workspace instead. Usage is implied by the 'bundle multiple documents' phrase but no explicit comparisons or exclusions are provided.

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