Core Content Services MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it's a creation/mutation tool (implied by 'creates'), interfaces with GraphQL API, explains default values for optional parameters (class_identifier defaults to 'Folder', id defaults to UUID with curly braces), and details both success and error return scenarios. It doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects, but covers substantial operational 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 appropriately front-loaded with prerequisites and purpose, but contains redundancy: the parameter documentation repeats information already present in the structured input schema (e.g., param names, types, required/optional status). The return value section is detailed but could be more concise. Overall, it's comprehensive but not maximally efficient.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, mutation operation, prerequisites), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers prerequisites, purpose, detailed parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and return scenarios. The output schema handles return value structure, so the description appropriately focuses on operational context rather than repeating output details.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantic information for all 5 parameters. Each parameter is documented with type, requirement status, and specific behavioral details (e.g., defaults, format expectations like UUID with curly braces, and the purpose of folder_properties). This adds significant 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Creates a folder in the content repository with specified properties.' It specifies the verb ('creates'), resource ('folder'), and location ('content repository'), making the action unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_document' or 'update_folder' beyond the resource type.

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 explicit, detailed prerequisites: 'To use this tool, you MUST call two other tools first in a specific sequence: 1. determine_class tool to get the class_identifier. 2. get_class_property_descriptions to get a list of valid properties for the given class_identifier.' This gives clear guidance on when and how to use this tool, including required preparatory steps.

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