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 the tool removes an entry, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, rate limits, or error handling. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 purpose stated first followed by parameter details. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points).

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 moderately complete. It covers purpose and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, auth needs). The output schema may handle return values, but more guidance is needed for safe 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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the description compensates by explaining 'serving_id' as 'The serving ID returned by add_food_entry (e.g., "D80lp$")'. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's basic type, clarifying the parameter's source and format, though it could specify length or validation rules.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('a food entry from the Cronometer diary'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_food_entry' or 'remove_biometric'. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 implies usage by referencing 'serving_id' from 'add_food_entry', suggesting it's for deleting entries added by that tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., 'delete_repeat_item' or 'remove_biometric') or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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