mcp-rfc-editor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure burden. It fails to specify whether this operation overwrites existing content, creates the section if missing, requires specific formatting for the address, or returns the modified document versus modifying in-place.

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, efficient sentence with no redundant words. However, it may be overly terse given the lack of annotations and output schema—additional sentences could have clarified behavior without becoming verbose.

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 nested document object structure and absence of output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, whether the document parameter is modified by reference, validation rules for RFC address formatting, or how this interacts with the broader document lifecycle.

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% for both the 'document' (RFCDocument) and 'address' (Authors address) parameters. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline score for complete schema coverage but not compensating with extra context.

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 uses a clear verb ('Set') and specific resource ('authors address section of an RFC document'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'set_authors' by specifying 'address section', though it does not explicitly contrast with 'get_authors_address' or clarify the write vs. read relationship.

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, prerequisites (e.g., whether the document must be loaded first), or relationship to 'get_authors_address'. It lacks explicit 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' instructions.

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