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. While 'Set' implies a write operation, the description fails to specify overwrite behavior (vs. append), validation rules for the year parameter, persistence requirements (e.g., need to call save_rfc), or side effects on the document state.

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 7-word sentence with no filler. However, extreme brevity comes at the cost of necessary behavioral context; it is front-loaded but undersized for a mutation tool with three required parameters and nested objects.

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 safety annotations (destructiveHint, readOnlyHint) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks critical context about what constitutes valid copyright data, error conditions, or the relationship between this setter and the document's persistence 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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage (document, year, holders all documented). The description does not add semantic details beyond the schema (e.g., expected format for holders, valid year ranges), but meets the baseline since the schema is fully descriptive.

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'), resource ('copyright notice'), and scope ('RFC document'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'get_copyright' through the action verb, though it does not explicitly signal that this is a mutation operation versus a read operation.

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 alternatives (e.g., get_copyright), prerequisites for calling (e.g., document must be loaded), or whether this overwrites existing copyright data. The agent receives no signals about proper invocation context.

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