contentstack-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects on existing data, or error handling. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and key parameters. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, return values, or error conditions, which are critical for safe and effective use. The schema covers parameters well, but behavioral context is insufficient for a tool that modifies data.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (uid, title, schema) with detailed descriptions. The description adds marginal value by mentioning that title and schema can be modified, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format constraints or 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 verb ('Updates') and resource ('an existing global field identified by its UID'), and specifies what can be modified ('title and schema'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_global_field' by focusing on updates, but doesn't explicitly contrast with 'update_content_type' or 'update_entry' which update different resources.

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 implies usage when modifying an existing global field's title or schema, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'create_global_field' for new fields or 'update_content_type' for content type updates. It mentions the UID requirement, which hints at prerequisite identification.

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