Worksection MCP Server

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

Annotations provide key behavioral traits (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description's burden is lower. It adds context by clarifying that archiving means 'closing' a project, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose additional aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, or what 'confirmation' entails, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the Args section redundantly repeats schema info. Every sentence serves a purpose, but slight verbosity in parameter documentation reduces perfect score.

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?

Given one parameter with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks output details (no schema), doesn't explain archival effects (e.g., if reversible), and misses usage context. For a mutation tool, more behavioral context would improve completeness.

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%, with the parameter 'id_project' fully documented in the schema as 'Project ID to archive'. The description repeats this exactly in the Args section, adding no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies since the 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 action ('Archive (close)') and resource ('a Worksection project'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'worksection_update_project' or 'worksection_complete_task' which might also affect project status, missing full sibling distinction.

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. For example, it doesn't mention when to archive versus update, complete, or activate a project, or if there are prerequisites like project status. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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