Maître d'MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return value ('Confirmation message with saved preferences summary') and documents all parameters, but omits critical behavioral details like whether calling this overwrites existing preferences, merges data, or requires specific authentication.

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 an appropriate docstring format with clear Args and Returns sections. Well-structured for a 12-parameter tool, though the Returns section could be more detailed. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 complexity (12 params) and lack of schema descriptions, the parameter documentation is thorough. However, it critically lacks differentiation from the 'update_preferences' sibling, which is essential context for a tool that claims to handle updates.

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 section comprehensively documents all 12 parameters with types, examples (e.g., '["vegetarian", "nut_allergy"]'), and semantic context that compensates completely for the bare JSON schema.

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 it handles 'restaurant preferences' with specific verbs ('Set up or update'), but it actively claims functionality ('update') that overlaps with the sibling tool 'update_preferences', creating ambiguity about tool selection.

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?

It specifies when to call the tool ('when the user first configures the assistant or wants to change their profile'), but fails to mention the sibling 'update_preferences' or clarify when to prefer that tool over this one, despite the functional overlap implied by 'or update'.

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