RTM MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'Undo a previous operation' and returns 'Undo confirmation.' It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is reversible itself, what happens to the undone data, permissions required, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence, usage guidance in the second, and parameter/return details in a structured format. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 (undo operation with mutation implications), no annotations, and an output schema that likely covers return values, the description is minimally complete. It explains the purpose and parameter but lacks details on behavioral implications, making it adequate but with clear gaps for safe operation.

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 description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'transaction_id' is the 'Transaction ID from previous operation,' clarifying its purpose and source. Since there's only one parameter and the schema provides no descriptions, this compensation is effective but not exhaustive.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Undo') and target ('a previous operation'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform various write operations. However, it doesn't specify what types of operations can be undone beyond 'write operations' mentioned later.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Use the transaction_id returned from write operations'), indicating it should follow write operations. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling tools.

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