mcp-rfc-editor

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but fails to state whether this operation overwrites existing authors, appends to them, requires subsequent 'save_rfc' calls to persist changes, or validates the input structure. It only states the basic action.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. While appropriately concise in form, it is arguably too brief for the complexity of the operation (mutation with nested object parameters), leaving critical information unstated.

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 nested object parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain persistence behavior and side effects. It fails to mention whether changes are immediate, if validation occurs, or what errors might arise, making it incomplete for safe agent operation.

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 coverage is 50% (the 'authors' parameter lacks a top-level description). The description does not compensate for this gap by explaining what the 'document' parameter should contain (ID vs object reference) or detailing the expected structure of the authors array items beyond the schema's basic property listing.

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 (Set) and resource (authors of an RFC document), providing immediate understanding of the tool's function. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'set_authors_address', which could cause confusion given the similar naming and scope.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'set_contributors' (RFCs distinguish between authors and contributors) or prerequisites like loading an RFC first. There are no exclusions or alternative suggestions mentioned.

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