mcp-rfc-editor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Set' implies mutation, it doesn't explicitly confirm this overwrites existing contributors (destructive behavior), nor does it mention validation rules for the content parameter or error handling.

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?

Extremely concise at 7 words. The single sentence is front-loaded with the action verb. However, given zero annotations and a mutation operation, this brevity leaves dangerous gaps in understanding rather than earning its efficiency.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It omits critical context: overwrite semantics, distinction from authors, content format expectations, and success/failure indicators.

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 100% schema description coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema—it doesn't clarify what format 'Contributors content' should take (e.g., plain text, JSON, XML) or what properties 'RFCDocument' object requires.

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 basic action (set contributors) and resource (RFC document), matching the tool name. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'set_authors'—a critical distinction in RFC standards—and doesn't clarify whether 'set' means replace or append.

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 'get_contributors', 'set_authors', or 'add_section'. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., document must exist) or whether this operation is reversible.

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