Pilot MCP

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 the intent but fails to explain what happens when invoked (e.g., opens a form, sends feedback, creates a ticket), side effects, or success indicators.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the key information and avoids repetition of the tool name or structured data.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description provides the minimum viable context to understand the tool's intent. However, it lacks behavioral details (what the request mechanism entails) that would be necessary for an agent to predict outcomes.

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 input schema contains zero parameters. Per the scoring rules, zero parameters establishes a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to describe beyond what the schema provides.

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 (request) and scope (integration with unsupported app), distinguishing it from the many specific app-integration siblings (e.g., create_omnifocus_task, outlook_send_email) which handle supported apps.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance is provided. While 'unsupported app' implicitly contrasts with the sibling tools, there is no explicit instruction on when to choose this over existing integrations or what constitutes 'unsupported'.

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