LaunchNotes MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the announcement will automatically publish at the scheduled time, subscribers will be notified, and it can be rescheduled by calling again. While annotations cover basic hints (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description provides important operational details about the scheduling mechanism and notification behavior that aren't captured in structured fields.

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 with clear sections (Args, Returns, Use Cases, Examples, Notes, Error Handling) and front-loads the core purpose. While comprehensive, some sections could be more concise - the format examples are somewhat repetitive. Overall, it's efficiently organized with minimal wasted space.

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 scheduling tool with good annotations and full schema coverage, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers the scheduling mechanism, notification behavior, rescheduling capability, error conditions, and practical usage examples. The combination of structured data and descriptive text gives the agent everything needed to use this tool correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description provides format examples and clarifies timezone handling, but doesn't add significant semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Schedule an announcement to be published automatically') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'launchnotes_publish_announcement' (immediate vs scheduled) and 'launchnotes_create_announcement' (creation vs scheduling). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Schedule an announcement to be published automatically at a specific future date and time') and provides clear use cases with examples. It differentiates from immediate publishing tools by emphasizing the scheduling aspect, and the notes section clarifies the automated publishing behavior.

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