llmconveyors-mcp

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully reveals critical behavioral traits: irreversibility ('This is irreversible'), authorization requirements ('Requires scope: resume:write'), and downstream system effects on agent runs. Minor gap: does not specify return value format or error conditions (e.g., if no resume exists).

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?

Three tightly constructed sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the critical safety warning ('Permanently delete'). Information flows logically from operation → consequences → warnings → prerequisites → related workflow.

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?

Despite having no parameters and no output schema, description fully covers the destructive operation's safety profile, authorization needs, irreversibility warning, and suggests review workflow. Sufficient for a dangerous zero-input tool.

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?

Zero parameters exist, establishing baseline score of 4 per rubric. Schema is empty object with 100% coverage. No parameter semantic explanation needed or possible.

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?

Description opens with specific verb 'delete' and resource 'master resume'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like master-resume-get (retrieval) and master-resume-upsert (update) by specifying the destructive 'delete' operation.

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?

Explicitly directs users to sibling tool 'master-resume-get to review the resume before deleting', establishing a clear workflow. It also explains the consequence of deletion (agent runs will require resume to be provided directly), giving clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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