Worksection MCP Server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write operation (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false, idempotentHint: false, openWorldHint: true). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond this, mentioning the return format ('Created task data with ID') but not addressing permissions, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list and return note. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 12 parameters, though the parameter list is somewhat redundant given the schema coverage, making it slightly verbose.

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 (12 parameters, write operation) and lack of output schema, the description provides adequate context by listing parameters and specifying the return format. However, it could be more complete by addressing authentication needs or error handling, though annotations cover basic behavioral traits.

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 input schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description repeats parameter details in a structured list but adds little semantic value beyond what's in the schema, such as clarifying priority scale (0=lowest, 10=highest) or date formats, which are already covered.

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 ('Create a new task') and resource ('in a Worksection project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like worksection_update_task or worksection_complete_task. It precisely defines the tool's purpose without being tautological.

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 creating tasks but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like worksection_update_task or worksection_create_project. It provides no guidance on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this tool is preferred over others.

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