fizzy-mcp

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 describes the four actions and their requirements (e.g., 'comment_id' needed for update/delete, 'body' for create/update), which covers basic operational behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or side effects, leaving gaps for a multi-action tool.

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 well-structured with bold headings ('Actions', 'Arguments', 'Returns'), front-loaded purpose, and bullet points for clarity. Every sentence earns its place by explaining actions, parameters, or returns without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to scan.

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 tool's complexity (5 parameters, 4 actions) and no annotations or output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers actions, parameters, and return types, but lacks details on authentication, error cases, or response formats, which are important for a multi-action tool without structured output documentation.

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 parameters. The description adds value by organizing parameters into an 'Arguments' section with clear semantics (e.g., 'account_slug' uses session default if omitted, 'body' is in markdown with length hints). This enhances understanding beyond the schema's basic descriptions, though it doesn't fully compensate for the lack of output schema details.

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's purpose: 'Manage comments on a card: create, list, update, or delete.' It specifies the verb ('manage') and resource ('comments on a card'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'fizzy_get_card' or 'fizzy_task' by focusing exclusively on comment operations.

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 clear context for when to use each action (e.g., 'list' to get all comments, 'update' to edit, 'delete' to remove), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fizzy_get_card' or 'fizzy_search'. It offers implied usage through action descriptions but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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