Append a validated employee record to employees.csv by supplying name, role, department, and salary for local company management.
Append a validated employee record to employees.csv.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| role | Yes | ||
| salary | Yes | ||
| department | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses very little: it implies a file write but says nothing about permissions, whether appends are atomic, what happens to the file on validation failure, or whether the write is reversible. "Validated" is the only behavioral hint and it is not explained.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than truly concise given the 4 undocumented required parameters.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description leaves too much unstated: validation rules, overwrite/duplicate behavior, and permission requirements.
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% across 4 parameters, and the description names none of them (name, role, department, salary) nor adds format or constraint meaning beyond what the field titles already imply. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
Specific verb ("append") plus resource ("a validated employee record") and the concrete storage target (employees.csv). It clearly states what the tool does, though it does not differentiate itself from the company-data siblings, which are mostly unrelated to employee records.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no indication of what happens on duplicate or invalid records. The word "validated" hints that validation occurs, but the conditions and failure behavior are left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.