Examplary MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'Update a question using an AI prompt', implying a mutation that might involve AI processing, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, rate limits, or what the AI does (e.g., generate content, suggest edits). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it's under-specified rather than concise, as it lacks necessary details for a mutation tool.

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?

Given a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral context, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'using an AI prompt', which hints at the 'message' parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain 'id' or 'questionId' (likely exam and question identifiers), their formats, or constraints. This adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.

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 'Update a question using an AI prompt' states a verb ('Update') and resource ('question'), but it's vague about what 'update' entails (e.g., modify content, regenerate, or add metadata) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'postExamsidQuestionsGenerate' or 'patchQuestion_bankid'. It's not tautological but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an exam ID or question ID), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'postExamsidQuestionsGenerate' for batch operations or 'patchQuestion_bankid' for direct edits. Usage is implied but not explicit.

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