productive-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a 'force-refresh' operation (implying it may be resource-intensive or override cached data) and mentions the dependency with find_project. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what 'force' entails operationally.

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 extremely concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence. Every word earns its place: the first sentence states what it does, and the second provides crucial usage context. There's no redundancy or fluff.

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 has 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists (so return values needn't be explained), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, usage timing, and dependency with find_project. The main gap is lack of behavioral details (e.g., side effects, performance impact), but for a simple cache-refresh operation, this is reasonably complete.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage context. A baseline of 4 is applied for zero-parameter tools when the description is otherwise 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 specific action ('Force-refresh') and target resource ('projects/services/deals cache from Productive'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like productive_list_projects or productive_find_project. It explicitly identifies the cache components being refreshed, which is more specific than just saying 'refresh cache'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('Call after creating new projects or services in Productive') and why ('so they're visible to find_project'). It also implicitly suggests an alternative workflow (not calling it when cache freshness isn't needed), though it doesn't name specific sibling alternatives for comparison.

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