llmconveyors-mcp

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

Excellent disclosure given no annotations: states 'Rate limited: 5 per hour', 'Requires scope: settings:write', and warns 'permanently changes the referral URL'. Covers auth, rate limits, and irreversible side effects that would otherwise be unknown.

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 tightly composed sentences with zero waste: (1) purpose and scope, (2) permanence warning, (3) rate/auth constraints, (4) prerequisite workflow. Front-loaded with primary action. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter state-changing tool without output schema, description comprehensively covers purpose, side effects, limits, auth scope, and workflow prerequisites. Minor gap: doesn't describe error cases (e.g., code already taken) or return value structure.

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 coverage is 100% (single parameter 'code' fully described). Description mentions 'custom vanity code' in first sentence but does not add format constraints, validation rules, or examples beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 appropriate when schema carries full load.

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?

Uses specific verb 'Set' with clear resource 'custom vanity code for the user's referral link'. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'referral-code' by describing this as 'replacing the auto-generated code' and instructing when to use the sibling tool.

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 workflow guidance: 'Use referral-code first to see the current code before changing it'. Clearly indicates prerequisite step and relationship to sibling tool. Also implies mutative nature vs read-only alternatives.

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