mcp-rfc-editor

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. 'Update' implies mutation but lacks disclosure of idempotency, error behavior if section missing, or whether partial updates are atomic. Insufficient for a mutation tool without safety annotations.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the key action. However, extreme brevity comes at the cost of missing usage guidelines and behavioral details that would help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Inadequate for a 4-parameter mutation tool with nested objects and no output schema or annotations. Fails to explain error handling, return values, or the structure expected for the 'document' object parameter beyond its type name.

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 coverage, the schema adequately documents all four parameters. The description aligns with the schema (mentions 'section' and 'RFC document') but adds no additional semantic guidance beyond what the schema properties already provide.

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 (Update), resource (section), and context (RFC document). It specifies 'existing' which distinguishes from add_section, though it doesn't differentiate from sibling set_section_by_title.

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 add_section or set_section_by_title. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., document must be loaded) or error conditions if the section doesn't exist.

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