Maître d'MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses key behaviors: 'add' performs an upsert (create/update), 'remove' deletes, and return values include 'merged dietary restrictions'. It also notes the referential integrity constraint on members.

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?

Uses a standard docstring format with clear Args and Returns sections that are easy to parse. The Returns section is potentially redundant given the output schema exists, but the structure remains efficient and front-loaded.

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?

Comprehensive for a 3-parameter tool: covers operational semantics, prerequisite workflows, constraint handling, and return value structure. The description adequately compensates for the lack of schema annotations and the missing title field.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the Args block fully compensates by documenting all three parameters: group_name includes examples ('work_team'), action maps values to CRUD operations ('add' to create/update), and members specifies the data type and external dependency constraint.

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 opens with specific verbs ('Create, update, or remove') and the exact resource being managed ('named group of dining companions'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'manage_person' (individuals) and 'list_groups' (read-only 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?

Provides explicit prerequisite guidance that members 'must already be saved via manage_person', establishing a clear workflow dependency. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer 'list_groups' for verification or the specific consequences of duplicate group names.

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