mcp-rfc-editor

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether this mutates the input document object, what happens if the section exists, whether the TOC is auto-updated, or what the return value is. Lacks critical behavioral context for a mutation operation.

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?

Single sentence of 7 words is not wasteful, but it is under-sized for the tool's complexity. Given 4 required parameters, a nested object input, no output schema, and multiple sibling section tools, the description should do more work upfront.

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?

Insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotations or output schema. Fails to explain the return behavior, document mutation semantics, or error states. Sibling tools offer alternative section manipulation paths that should be acknowledged.

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%, providing detailed descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds no specific guidance on parameter interactions (e.g., how 'number' formatting works) but meets baseline expectations when schema is comprehensive.

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 ('Add') and resource ('new section') with context ('RFC document'). The word 'new' helps distinguish from sibling 'update_section', though it could better differentiate from 'set_section_by_title'.

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 provided on when to use this versus 'update_section' or 'set_section_by_title'. Does not mention prerequisites (e.g., document must exist) or failure conditions (e.g., if section number already exists).

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