Personal Context MCP Server

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 but provides none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions might be required, whether changes are reversible, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely 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 extremely concise - just three words. While this is efficient, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Every word earns its place, but there simply aren't enough words to provide meaningful guidance. The structure is front-loaded but lacks substance.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does beyond the obvious, provides no behavioral context, offers no parameter guidance, and gives no usage instructions. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, meaning all 4 parameters are completely undocumented in the schema. The description provides no information about what 'category', 'subcategory', 'content', or 'tags' mean, their expected formats, or how they relate to 'personal information'. The description fails to compensate for the complete 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 'Update existing personal information' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'update_personal_info' and title 'Update Personal Information'. It provides no specific details about what 'personal information' entails or how the update operation works. While it does include the verb 'update', it lacks any distinction from sibling tools like 'batch_save_personal_info' or 'delete_personal_info'.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'batch_save_personal_info' and 'delete_personal_info', the agent has no information about when this single update tool is preferable to batch operations or when deletion might be more appropriate.

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