Task Context MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies language constraints ('English only'), content limits ('summary <= 200 chars', 'content <= 4000 chars'), and content guidelines ('No PII, no task-instance specifics; focus on WHAT/WHY'). However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens to existing fields not updated.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized: it starts with the core purpose, then usage guidelines, followed by constraints in a bullet-like format, and ends with a clear instruction. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, making it easy to parse.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, constraints, and parameters sufficiently for a mutation tool, though it could benefit from more explicit behavioral details like error handling or side effects.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics: it mentions 'summary and/or content' and repeats some constraints (e.g., 'summary <= 200 chars', 'English only'), but doesn't provide additional meaning beyond what's already in the schema descriptions for artifact_id, summary, and content.

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 verb 'update' and resource 'artifact', specifying it's for when guidance is 'incomplete, wrong, or needs refinement'. It distinguishes from 'create_artifact' by advising 'prefer updating over creating duplicates', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other siblings like 'reflect_and_update_artifacts' or 'archive_artifact'.

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?

It provides clear context for when to use: 'when existing guidance is incomplete, wrong, or needs refinement' and 'immediately when you learn something better or user feedback indicates a correction'. It mentions an alternative ('prefer updating over creating duplicates') but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare with other siblings like 'archive_artifact' or 'reflect_and_update_artifacts'.

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