Circuitry MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling (e.g., invalid screenId), or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 purpose. It wastes no words but could be slightly more structured by including key usage notes. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise for a simple update tool.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., permissions, side effects), response format, or error conditions. For a tool that modifies resources, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke it correctly.

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 already documents all 4 parameters (screenId, name, dimensions, backgroundColor) with descriptions. The description lists the updatable fields (name, dimensions, backgroundColor), which adds minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description doesn't compensate with additional semantics like format examples for dimensions or backgroundColor.

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 ('screen properties') with specific fields mentioned (name, dimensions, backgroundColor). It distinguishes from siblings like screen.create, screen.delete, and screen.get by specifying it's for updating existing screens. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from screen.duplicate or screen.select, which slightly reduces specificity.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., screen must exist), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new screens), or refer to sibling tools like screen.create for creation or screen.get for retrieval. Usage is implied through the word 'Update' but lacks explicit context.

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