Statonic 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 states the tool deletes and saves, which implies a destructive, persistent mutation. However, it doesn't mention permissions required, whether deletion is reversible, what happens to associated data, error conditions, or confirmation prompts. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 extremely concise—just one sentence with seven words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a segment') and efficiently adds context ('from the project and save'). There's no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover error handling, return values, side effects, or safety considerations. The context signals indicate two required parameters, but the description doesn't explain their interplay or typical usage patterns, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 fully documents both parameters (path and id). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. However, it implies the tool operates on a project file and a segment ID, which aligns with the schema but doesn't enhance it.

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 action ('Delete a segment') and the resource ('from the project'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'update_segment', which could also modify segments. The phrase 'and save' adds useful context about persistence but doesn't fully differentiate the tool's unique purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_segment' or other segment-related tools. It mentions saving, which implies a write operation, but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or typical use cases. There's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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