Statonic MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool saves changes to the project file, reuses existing text tracks or creates new ones, and includes detailed positioning reference. However, it lacks information on permissions, error conditions, or what happens if the project file is invalid.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality in the first sentence. The positioning reference is necessary but presented efficiently. No wasted sentences, though the coordinate explanation could be slightly more integrated.

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?

For a complex tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core operation and positioning details but lacks information on return values, error handling, or integration with sibling tools like 'read_project' or 'render_preview'.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the coordinate system for x and y parameters with clear examples (-1 to 1 range, canvas center at 0,0), which goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions. This compensates well for the high parameter count.

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 specific action ('Add a new text overlay'), the target resource ('to the project'), and the outcome ('and save'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_segment' or 'delete_segment' by specifying creation of text overlays rather than modifying or removing existing segments.

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 for adding text overlays to projects, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_segment' for modifying existing text or other media tools. The mention of reusing existing text tracks offers some contextual hint but no clear when/when-not rules.

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