Lichess MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool can 'offer, accept, or decline' but does not specify permissions required, rate limits, whether the action is reversible, or what happens after invocation (e.g., game state changes). 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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose and scope, the second clarifies the dual functionality. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place by adding clarity without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (a mutation in an active game), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions, side effects, or response format, which are important for a tool that modifies game state.

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 both parameters (gameId and accept). The description adds marginal value by implying the accept parameter's dual role for offering/accepting versus declining, but does not provide additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Offer, accept, or decline a draw') on a specific resource ('in an active Lichess chess game'), and distinguishes it from siblings like lichess_resign, lichess_abort, and lichess_make_move by focusing on draw-related actions only. The second sentence elaborates on the dual nature of the tool for both proposing and responding to draw offers.

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 implies usage context ('in an active Lichess chess game') and mentions responding to opponent offers, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like lichess_resign or lichess_abort, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implied active game requirement.

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