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 disclosing behavioral traits. It effectively communicates destructiveness ('Permanently delete', 'cannot be undone'), scope limitations (what is NOT deleted), and authorization requirements. It does not mention idempotency or specific error conditions beyond the 403, preventing a perfect score.

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 tightly structured with four high-information sentences followed by a clear Args section. Critical information (permanence, irreversibility) is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or wasted language.

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 an output schema exists (per context signals), the description appropriately focuses on behavioral semantics rather than return values. It covers auth, scope, and destructiveness adequately for a single-parameter deletion tool, though it could explicitly mention what successful deletion returns.

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 has 0% description coverage (only title and type). The description compensates by documenting the single parameter in the Args section, specifying it is a 'UUID' and identifying it as the 'workspace to delete', adding critical type and semantic information absent 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 clearly states the specific action ('Permanently delete') and resource ('workspace'), and explicitly distinguishes the scope from sibling tools by clarifying that 'Referenced documents and sub-workspaces are NOT deleted' (differentiating from delete_doc and indicating non-cascading behavior).

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?

Provides explicit prerequisites ('Requires write key') and failure modes ('The API will return 403 if a read key is used'), which constrains when the tool can be successfully invoked. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like read_workspace, the auth requirements provide clear usage constraints.

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