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, open-world operation. The description adds useful context about the optional 'todo' parameter creating checkboxes and the default email behavior, which aren't covered by annotations. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions beyond what annotations provide.

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, followed by a structured Args/Returns section that efficiently covers key details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and there's no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the action, parameters, and return mention ('Created comment data'), but lacks details on response format, error handling, or side effects. Given the annotations provide safety context and schema covers parameters well, it's mostly complete but could benefit from more behavioral disclosure.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by briefly explaining the 'todo' parameter's effect (creates checkboxes) and the default for 'email_user_from', but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond the schema. This 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 clearly states the specific action ('Add a comment') and target resource ('to a Worksection task'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like worksection_get_comments (which retrieves comments) and worksection_complete_task (which modifies task status). The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 context (when you need to add a comment to a task) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like worksection_update_task (which might also allow commenting) or prerequisites. It mentions the default behavior for email_user_from but doesn't specify when to override it.

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