Worksection MCP Server

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Only provided fields will be updated' clarifies partial update behavior, which isn't covered by annotations. Annotations already indicate this is a non-destructive, idempotent mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), so the description doesn't need to repeat safety aspects. It provides useful operational detail without contradictions.

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 parameter details and return information. It's appropriately sized for a 6-parameter update tool. However, the Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 an update tool with good annotations (covering safety and idempotency) and full parameter documentation in the schema, the description provides adequate context. It explains the partial update behavior and return value. The main gap is lack of output schema, but the description mentions 'Returns: Updated project data,' which helps somewhat.

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 fully documents all parameters. The description's Args section repeats parameter information but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., explaining relationships between parameters or edge cases). 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 ('Update an existing Worksection project') and resource ('Worksection project'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like worksection_create_project (creation) and worksection_get_project (retrieval). The verb 'update' is precise and differentiates this mutation operation from other project-related operations.

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 through 'Only provided fields will be updated,' suggesting partial updates are allowed. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like worksection_archive_project or worksection_activate_project, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project ID). The guidance is present but incomplete.

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