Worksection MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation with open-world semantics. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this—it mentions the return format ('Created project data with ID') but doesn't cover error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. With annotations providing the safety profile, this earns a baseline score.

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 purpose in the first sentence. The parameter list is organized but could be more concise—some details (like date formats) are redundant with the schema. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 the tool's complexity (8 parameters, creation operation) and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage context, error handling, or detailed return value explanation. Annotations help, but more behavioral detail 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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description lists parameters but adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format details like 'YYYY-MM-DD' are already in schema patterns). It meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 explicitly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('new project in Worksection'), making the purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'worksection_update_project' or 'worksection_get_projects' by specifying it's for creation rather than modification or retrieval.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., required permissions), when not to use it (e.g., for updating existing projects), or refer to sibling tools like 'worksection_update_project' for modifications.

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