Pocketsmith MCP Server

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. It states 'Create a new event' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no information on permissions required, whether events are editable/deletable, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a creation tool with 7 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 concise at just 5 words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted words. Every element ('Create', 'new event', 'recurring transaction') contributes essential information without redundancy.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'event' represents in the PocketSmith context, doesn't mention required permissions or side effects, and provides no information about return values. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema and tool name to understand this tool's full context.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 7 parameters. The baseline is 3 since the schema does all the work, but the description doesn't compensate with any additional context about parameter relationships or usage examples.

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 tool creates a new event, specifying it's for recurring transactions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'pocketsmith_create_transaction' (likely for one-time transactions) and 'pocketsmith_list_events'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other creation tools like 'pocketsmith_create_category' or 'pocketsmith_create_category_rule', leaving some ambiguity about the specific resource scope.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing scenario_id from account details), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'pocketsmith_create_transaction' for non-recurring transactions. The agent must infer usage from the name and schema alone.

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