ClawDaddy MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses critical side effect ('invalidates your old token') and outcome ('new token will be sent to your email'). Covers the mutation nature and delivery mechanism, though lacks details on rate limits or not-found behavior.

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: purpose, input instruction, outcome, and warning. Front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place with distinct 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?

Complete for a 2-parameter recovery operation. Explains input (email), process (Stripe association), output (new token emailed), and side effects (invalidation). Lacks output schema, but description adequately covers the return behavior via email notification.

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% (both email and domain fully described in schema). Description mentions email parameter usage but adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema description. Baseline 3 appropriate when schema documentation is comprehensive.

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?

Specific verb 'Recover' + resource 'management token' clearly stated. Context 'lost' and 'Stripe checkout' scopes usage. Clearly distinguishes from DNS-focused siblings (add_dns_record, purchase_domain, etc.) which manage domains, not authentication tokens.

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?

Implies when to use ('lost management token') and provides prerequisite context ('email used during Stripe checkout'). The WARNING about invalidation serves as implicit 'when-not' guidance (avoid if preserving old token is desired). Lacks explicit comparison to siblings, though distinction is obvious given different domains.

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