llmconveyors-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully communicates irreversibility ('permanently', 'irreversible'), scope of data loss ('all files associated'), authorization requirements ('Requires scope: sessions:write'), and side effects (removes all artifacts). No contradictions present.

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?

Five sentences with zero waste: (1) core action, (2) irreversibility warning, (3) usage context, (4) auth requirement, (5) prerequisite workflow. Front-loaded with the critical safety information and logically ordered.

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 destructive 2-parameter operation with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers authentication, prerequisites, safety warnings, sibling tool relationships, and the full scope of data destruction. No gaps identified.

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% ('Generation ID to delete', 'Session ID that owns the generation'), so the schema fully documents parameters. The description implies these concepts ('delete a generation... from a session') but doesn't add syntax beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 a precise action verb ('Permanently delete'), identifies the specific resource ('generation'), clarifies scope ('all its artifacts: CV, cover letter, emails'), and distinguishes from siblings like content-delete-source (which deletes sources, not generations) and session-delete (which deletes entire sessions).

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 usage context ('clean up unwanted outputs'), names a prerequisite sibling tool ('Use session-hydrate first to review'), and establishes workflow order (review before delete). This is exceptional guidance for a destructive operation.

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