llmconveyors-mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses mutation ('Modifies the user's consent record'), authentication requirements ('Requires scope: settings:write'), and functional effects (e.g., 'ai-generation enables agent runs'). Lacks discussion of idempotency or error cases.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: sentence 1 states core action, sentence 2 provides examples/semantics, sentence 3 covers auth and mutation, and sentence 4 provides workflow guidance. Information-dense yet readable.

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?

Complete for a single-parameter mutation tool without output schema: covers the full consent workflow (check status → grant → revoke), authentication requirements, and functional impacts of each purpose option.

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 100% schema coverage (baseline 3), the description adds valuable semantic context by explaining what specific enum values actually do (e.g., 'ai-generation enables agent runs, contact-enrichment enables contact lookups'), which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Consent purpose to grant'.

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 uses the specific verb 'Grant' with the resource 'consent for a specific data processing purpose' and distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming privacy-list-consents (to check first) and privacy-revoke-consent (to undo) within the text.

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?

Excellent explicit guidance: states to 'Use privacy-list-consents to check current status first' (prerequisite), mentions the required scope 'settings:write', and identifies privacy-revoke-consent as the tool 'to undo' this action.

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