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 'Update a custom field', implying a mutation operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether the update is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing data. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not provide enough information for an AI agent to understand how to invoke the tool correctly or what to expect in return. More details on parameters, behavior, and usage are needed.

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%, meaning none of the 6 parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the tool name—it does not explain what parameters like 'projectId', 'fieldId', 'options', or 'required' mean or how to use them. This fails to compensate for the 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 action ('Update') and the resource ('a custom field in a GitHub project'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'update_project' or 'set_field_value', which might have overlapping functionality, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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. For example, it does not specify if this is for modifying existing fields only, or how it differs from 'create_project_field' or 'clear_field_value'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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