Grok MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('Delete...remove') and confirms server-side action, but lacks details on permissions needed, irreversibility, rate limits, or error conditions. For a deletion tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a minimal but adequate disclosure of core behavior.

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 efficiently structured with a purpose statement followed by parameter and return documentation. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the tool, the second explains the parameter, and the third describes the return. No wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basic operation and parameter but lacks context on permissions, side effects, or error handling. It's minimally complete given the simple parameter set, but doesn't fully address the risks and constraints typical of destructive operations.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds clear meaning for the single parameter ('response_id: ID of the stored response to remove'), explaining its purpose beyond the schema's bare title. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, though it doesn't detail ID format or sourcing.

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 ('Delete') and target resource ('a stored chat completion from xAI's servers'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'clear_chat_history' (which clears history) or 'delete_file' (which deletes files). 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 implies usage context by specifying 'stored chat completion,' suggesting this tool is for removing previously saved responses rather than active chat data. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. 'clear_chat_history' for ephemeral data) or name alternatives, leaving some ambiguity about sibling tool differentiation.

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