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 states that existing variables are overwritten (destructive behavior), but doesn't mention permission requirements, whether the operation is reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's function and key behavior. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It covers the basic purpose and destructive nature but lacks details about permissions, error conditions, return values, or how it fits with sibling tools. More context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 description doesn't explain the 'variables' parameter beyond what's implied by 'script variables list'. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the schema provides all structural details (array of objects with name, type, value), but the description adds minimal semantic context. The baseline is 3 since there's only one parameter, but it doesn't compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 ('Replace') and resource ('script variables list'), and specifies that existing variables are overwritten. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'set_graph' or 'add_node' which might also manipulate data structures, so it doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.

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 'add_node' or 'set_graph'. It mentions that existing variables are overwritten, which implies a destructive operation, but doesn't specify prerequisites, timing, or when to choose other tools for variable management.

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