Circuitry MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's an update operation. It doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or any rate limits. 'Update' implies mutation but lacks behavioral details needed for safe invocation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update a layout element') and enumerates the updatable fields. Every word serves a purpose with zero waste.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the update returns, error conditions, or behavioral implications. Given the complexity (4 parameters including nested objects) and lack of structured safety hints, more context is needed for reliable agent use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds marginal value by listing the updatable fields (name, position, dimensions, style), which aligns with schema properties, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Update') and resource ('a layout element'), and specifies the fields that can be updated (name, position, dimensions, style). It distinguishes this from layout.create and layout.delete among siblings, though not explicitly from layout.setCellContent or layout.setCellStyle which are more specific updates.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like layout.setCellContent or layout.setCellStyle for partial updates, or layout.create for new elements. The description implies it's for updating existing layouts but doesn't specify prerequisites or constraints.

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