molt-mcp

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 and succeeds by stating 'This action cannot be undone' to indicate destructive irreversibility, and specifying authentication requirements and error responses (403). It appropriately warns about the permanent nature of the operation that would typically be indicated by a destructiveHint annotation.

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 efficiently organizes four sentences covering the action, irreversibility warning, authentication requirements, and error conditions without redundancy. The addition of an 'Args:' section to document the parameter is appropriate given the schema's lack of descriptions, ensuring all necessary information is conveyed compactly.

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 tool's single-parameter simplicity and the presence of an output schema (meaning return values need not be described), the description adequately covers the operation's purpose, destructive implications, and authorization constraints. No significant gaps remain for an agent to understand when and how to invoke this tool safely.

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 input schema provides 0% description coverage for the doc_id parameter, offering only type information. The description compensates by specifying that the parameter is a 'UUID' and defining it as 'the document to delete,' adding essential semantic meaning missing from the schema.

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 explicitly states the specific action 'Permanently delete a document,' combining a clear verb with the resource type. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like delete_workspace (by specifying 'document') and from read_doc/update_doc (by emphasizing the permanent deletion aspect).

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 explicit authorization context stating 'Requires write key' and warns that 'The API will return 403 if a read key is used,' establishing clear prerequisites for safe invocation. While it does not explicitly name alternatives like update_doc for non-destructive modifications, it effectively communicates the permission requirements and constraints for proper use.

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