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 and discloses critical behavioral traits: authentication requirements (write key), error conditions (403), and concurrency control (if_match ETag for conflict prevention). It implies destructiveness via 'replaces existing content' but could explicitly state that original content is permanently lost.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the purpose, auth requirements, and error handling, followed by a structured Args block. Every element serves a distinct purpose; no redundancy or filler text is present despite documenting three parameters and auth constraints.

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 omits return value details. It comprehensively covers the 3 parameters (compensating for zero schema coverage) and auth requirements. Minor gap: could explicitly clarify the destructive nature of the operation relative to sibling append_doc.

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 (titles only), but the description fully compensates via the Args section. It adds crucial semantics: doc_id is a 'UUID', content is 'markdown' format, and if_match is a 'version ETag' for conflict prevention—information entirely 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 opens with the specific action 'Replace' and clearly identifies the resource ('document') and scope ('entire content'). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like append_doc (partial addition) and read_doc (read-only access) through the explicit 'replace entire content' phrasing.

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 clear prerequisites ('Requires write key') and failure modes ('API will return 403 if a read key is used'), establishing when the tool can be used. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from append_doc regarding when to prefer partial updates versus full replacement.

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