mcp-github-project-manager

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Set a field value', implying a mutation/write operation, but doesn't clarify permissions required, whether it overwrites existing values, error handling (e.g., invalid field types), or side effects. The list of supported field types adds some context but lacks operational details like rate limits or authentication needs.

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 front-loads the core action and resource. The list of field types is relevant and adds value without unnecessary elaboration. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating core purpose from details).

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 (a mutation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions or errors, parameter semantics, or return values. For a write operation in a GitHub context, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate 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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'field types' (e.g., TEXT, NUMBER) but doesn't explain how the 'value' parameter maps to these types or what formats are expected (e.g., string representation of dates). It also doesn't clarify what 'projectId', 'itemId', and 'fieldId' refer to (e.g., numeric IDs, names), leaving parameters largely undocumented.

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 ('Set a field value') and resource ('for a GitHub project item'), making the purpose unambiguous. It also lists the supported field types, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clear_field_value' or 'get_field_value', though the verb 'Set' implies a write operation distinct from 'get'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a project, item, and field to exist), compare it to sibling tools like 'clear_field_value' or 'update_project_field', or specify contexts where it's appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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