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 but provides none. It does not state whether this operation is destructive, what validation occurs on the toc string, expected format (markdown, plain text, structured), or return behavior.

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?

While brief, the single sentence constitutes under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It fails to earn its place by providing actionable context beyond the tool name.

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 an RFC document tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks critical domain context such as TOC syntax requirements, relationship to the section hierarchy, and whether changes are persisted immediately or require save_rfc.

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 has 100% description coverage ('RFCDocument' and 'Table of contents'), establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds no additional semantic value regarding the toc format (e.g., whether it should contain section numbers, indentation rules) or the document object structure.

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 'Set the table of contents' is essentially tautological, restating the tool name (set_toc) without adding scope or functionality details. While it identifies the resource (table of contents), it fails to distinguish from sibling get_toc or clarify what 'setting' entails (validation, formatting, etc.).

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 alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), or side effects (e.g., whether this validates against existing sections or just sets a text field).

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