Worksection MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it clarifies that activation applies to archived projects (a prerequisite state) and mentions the return value ('Confirmation of activation'). Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent, open-world mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), but the description provides useful operational context.

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 perfectly structured and concise: one clear purpose sentence, followed by a brief Args section with only the essential parameter, and a Returns statement. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does) 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 single-parameter mutation tool with comprehensive annotations but no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter, and return value. The main gap is lack of detail about what 'Confirmation of activation' contains, but given the annotations provide safety context and the tool is relatively simple, this is a minor omission.

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's Args section repeats the parameter information already fully covered in the input schema (100% schema description coverage). It adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides about 'id_project'. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Activate (unarchive)') and resource ('a previously archived Worksection project'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'worksection_archive_project' (which performs the opposite action) and 'worksection_create_project' (which creates new projects). The parenthetical '(unarchive)' provides helpful clarification of the operation's effect.

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 explicitly states this is for 'previously archived' projects, providing clear context about when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives (though the sibling list includes related tools like 'worksection_archive_project' and 'worksection_update_project').

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