TypeScript MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions updating import statements, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose critical details like whether this is a destructive operation (it moves files), what happens on failure, permission requirements, or rate limits. For a file mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main action.

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 file mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should address behavioral aspects like safety (destructive nature), error handling, and what the tool returns. The mention of import updates is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain path format conventions or import update mechanics). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Move'), resource ('TypeScript/JavaScript file'), and scope ('to a new location and update all import statements'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'rename_symbol' (renaming within same file) and 'mcp__typescript__move_directory' (moving directories).

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 for moving files with import updates, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'rename_symbol' for renaming symbols or 'mcp__typescript__move_directory' for moving directories. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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