Storyblok MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's an update operation. It doesn't disclose required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified fields. For a mutation tool with 20 parameters, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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. It's appropriately concise without being under-specified, though it could be more front-loaded with critical behavioral information given the tool's complexity.

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 20 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the update's scope (partial vs. full), response format, error handling, or side effects. The agent lacks sufficient context to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 20 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning the context parameter's purpose. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't provide extra value.

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 ('Updates') and resource ('an existing extension'), specifying the context ('organization or partner'). It distinguishes from sibling 'create_extension' by indicating it's for existing extensions, but doesn't differentiate from other update tools like 'update_field_plugin' or 'update_webhook'.

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 minimal guidance by mentioning the context parameter options, but offers no explicit when-to-use advice, prerequisites, or alternatives. It doesn't explain when to choose this over other update tools or what happens if the extension doesn't exist.

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