Examplary MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an 'Add' operation (implying creation/mutation) but doesn't mention required permissions, whether this operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate entries, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential information.

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, no output schema, and a complex nested parameter structure (the 'question' object with 7 properties), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid question, what fields are required versus optional, or what the tool returns upon success/failure.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its single complex parameter ('question'), and the description provides no information about what fields are needed or their meanings. While there's only one parameter, the description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation, leaving the agent guessing about required fields like 'type' and 'settings'.

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 action ('Add a question') and target resource ('question bank in the current workspace'), providing specific verb+resource information. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'postQuestion_types' or 'patchQuestion_bankid', which also create or modify question-related resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'postQuestion_types' (creates question types) or 'patchQuestion_bankid' (modifies existing questions). There's no mention of prerequisites, constraints, or appropriate contexts for adding questions versus other operations.

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