equivault-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is a mutation ('update'), requires a specific tier ('Advisor tier'), and performs partial updates ('Only the fields you provide are changed'). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving behavioral gaps for an agent.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and partial update behavior, and the second specifies the tier requirement. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured, with every sentence adding value.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete: it covers the purpose, partial update behavior, and tier requirement. However, it lacks details on error cases, response format, or side effects, which are important for an agent to use it correctly in context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain 'alert_id' format or 'threshold' units), but it does imply partial updates, which contextualizes parameter usage without detailing individual parameters.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'existing alert rule', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_alert' and 'delete_alert'. It specifies that only provided fields are changed, which adds precision about the update behavior.

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 implies usage by stating 'Only the fields you provide are changed', suggesting partial updates, but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_alert' or 'delete_alert'. The mention of 'Requires Advisor tier' provides some context about prerequisites, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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