Worksection MCP Server

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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint: false), non-destructive (destructiveHint: false), idempotent (idempotentHint: true), and open-world (openWorldHint: true). The description only states it reopens tasks and returns confirmation, without adding details about permissions needed, rate limits, or what 'confirmation' entails.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: one stating the purpose and one documenting parameters/return. However, the parameter documentation is redundant with the schema, and the structure could be more front-loaded by integrating parameter information more efficiently.

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 moderate complexity (state-changing operation), rich annotations, and complete schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, the description should provide more detail about what 'Confirmation' contains (e.g., success status, updated task object, error details). The current description leaves return values underspecified.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the single parameter (id_task). The description repeats the parameter documentation verbatim ('Task ID to reopen'), adding no additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Reopen') and target resource ('a previously completed task'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like worksection_complete_task (which does the opposite) and worksection_update_task (which modifies task properties). 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('previously completed task'), but doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies usage for reversing task completion status, but lacks explicit exclusions like using it on already-open tasks.

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