Maître d'MCP

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it discloses case-insensitive name matching, upsert behavior (add creates OR updates), destructive capability (remove), and return value (confirmation).

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 structured docstring format (Args/Returns) that efficiently packs information. Slightly more verbose than pure prose but appropriate given the schema coverage gap; zero wasted content.

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 CRUD person-management tool: covers all parameters, return values, and behavioral quirks. Given the 0% schema coverage, the description successfully provides everything needed for invocation.

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?

Exceptional compensation for 0% schema coverage: documents all 5 parameters with rich semantics including examples (e.g., ['nut_allergy', 'vegan']), allowed values ('add'/'remove'), and behavior (case-insensitive).

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 (Add, update, remove) and a clear resource (dining companion), distinguishing it from siblings like list_people (read-only) and manage_group (group-level).

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 clear internal usage guidance for the 'action' parameter (add vs remove) and explains that 'add' creates or updates, but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools like list_people or manage_group.

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