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. It mentions 'Update' but doesn't specify if this replaces existing content entirely (destructive), appends, or upserts. No information on side effects, permissions, or return values.

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 extremely brief (5 words) and front-loaded, but its brevity results in underspecification. While no words are wasted, the description lacks necessary detail for an agent to distinguish this tool from similar siblings or understand complex parameter interactions.

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 presence of 3 parameters including a complex nested object (RFCDocument), multiple similar sibling tools, and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the relationship between this tool and 'update_section', or behavioral edge cases.

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, establishing the baseline. The description adds 'by its title' which aligns with the title parameter, but provides no additional context about the RFCDocument object structure or content format expectations beyond what the schema already states.

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 (Update) and target (section), implying lookup by title. However, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'update_section', leaving ambiguity about why this specific tool exists versus the generic update alternative.

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 tool versus siblings like 'update_section' or 'add_section'. No mention of prerequisites, error conditions (e.g., non-existent section titles), or whether this creates or strictly updates.

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