247afk Block Editor 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 clearly states this is a destructive replacement operation ('All existing nodes and edges are replaced'), which is crucial information. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, error conditions, permission requirements, or what happens to related resources like variables.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core action, the second provides crucial behavioral context. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information ('Replace the entire script graph') is front-loaded.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does the minimum by clearly stating this replaces everything. However, it doesn't address what the tool returns, error handling, or provide any guidance on parameter usage. Given the complexity implied by the schema (nested objects for nodes/edges), more context would be helpful.

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, and the tool description provides no information about the three parameters (nodes, edges, variables). While the description mentions 'script graph' and 'nodes and edges', it doesn't explain what these parameters represent, their structure, or how they should be formatted. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 specific action ('Replace the entire script graph at once') and resource ('script graph'), distinguishing it from siblings like add_node, remove_edge, or set_variables. It explicitly mentions that all existing nodes and edges are replaced, which differentiates it from incremental modification tools.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this to build a complete script from scratch') and implicitly when not to use it (for partial modifications, where siblings like add_node or remove_edge would be more appropriate). It clearly positions this as a wholesale replacement operation.

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