productive-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('set/override') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to existing defaults, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence. The Args section is structured but could be more integrated; overall, it's efficient with minimal waste, though slightly fragmented.

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 an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations and incomplete behavioral disclosure, it should provide more context on effects and usage. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context: 'project' is a name or id, and 'service' must belong to the project. This clarifies semantics beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail format or validation rules. With 0% coverage and 2 parameters, this is strong but not exhaustive.

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 verb ('set/override') and resource ('remembered default service for a project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'productive_list_services' or 'productive_find_project', which might involve similar concepts, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context on prerequisites, such as whether the project or service must exist, or when to choose this over other tools like 'productive_list_services' for viewing defaults. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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