mcp-rfc-editor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states that it creates an empty document without explaining side effects, error conditions (e.g., duplicate RFC numbers), persistence model, or return values. The agent cannot determine if this operation is idempotent, destructive, or what fields the created document will contain.

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 consists of a single efficient sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose without redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb, though given the complexity of the RFC tool ecosystem, additional sentences may have been warranted for completeness.

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?

As a creation tool with no output schema and no safety annotations, the description should disclose error handling, uniqueness constraints, and the relationship to save_rfc for persistence. The current description lacks this necessary operational context for safe invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters ('RFC number' and 'Document title'), establishing the baseline score. The description adds no additional semantic context about these parameters, such as expected formats for the RFC number or constraints on the title, but the schema compensates adequately.

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 states the specific action 'Create' and resource 'RFC document', with the modifier 'new empty' distinguishing it from loading existing documents. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like load_rfc or download_rfc, which could confuse an agent deciding between creating fresh versus importing existing RFCs.

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 such as load_rfc or download_rfc. It omits critical prerequisites such as whether the RFC number must be unique or what happens if a document with that number already exists.

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