cronometer-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 'Delete,' implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent, if it requires specific permissions, what happens to associated data, or what the output schema returns. For a destructive 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a usage tip and parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value with zero waste, making it efficient and well-structured for an AI agent.

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's complexity (destructive mutation), lack of annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers purpose and basic usage but lacks details on behavioral risks, permissions, or output interpretation. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but other gaps keep it from being 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 description adds meaning by explaining that 'fast_id' is 'The fast ID to delete' and references 'get_fasting_history' to obtain it, which provides context beyond the schema's basic type (integer). However, with 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description compensates adequately but doesn't fully detail format or constraints (e.g., valid ID ranges), keeping it at a baseline level.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a fast entry from Cronometer'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'cancel_active_fast' by specifying deletion of a historical entry rather than an active one. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings (e.g., 'remove_food_entry'), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 to 'Use get_fasting_history first to find the fast_id,' which is helpful context for when to use this tool. It implies this tool is for deleting historical fasts, not active ones (which 'cancel_active_fast' handles). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives beyond the implied one, so it falls short of a 5.

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