Amazing Marvin MCP

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 the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error handling for invalid IDs, or response format, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 zero wasted words, clearly front-loading the core action. Every word earns its place by specifying the verb, resource, scope, and outcome.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details like success/error responses, side effects, and operational constraints, making it inadequate for safe agent use.

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 meaningful context by implying 'task_ids' should contain multiple task identifiers to mark as done, which clarifies the array parameter's purpose. With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this adequately compensates, though it doesn't detail ID format or constraints.

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 ('mark') and resource ('tasks') with the specific action 'as done' and scope 'multiple...at once'. It distinguishes from the sibling 'mark_task_done' by specifying batch capability, but doesn't explicitly name the sibling for full differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'mark_task_done' for single tasks or other task management tools. The description implies batch usage but offers no explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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