Worksection MCP Server

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

Annotations cover key traits (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true), but the description adds valuable context: 'Only provided fields will be changed' clarifies partial update behavior, which isn't captured in annotations. It doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, but the added behavioral detail is helpful beyond the structured data.

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 ('Update an existing task. Only provided fields will be changed.'), but the 'Args' section is redundant with the schema, adding bulk without new value. It could be more concise by omitting the parameter list or integrating it more efficiently. The structure is clear but includes unnecessary repetition.

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 (9 parameters, mutation operation) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains partial update behavior and lists parameters, but lacks output details (no schema provided), error scenarios, or permissions. With annotations covering safety and idempotency, it's minimally viable but could better address mutation-specific concerns like validation or side effects.

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 (e.g., 'id_task' as 'Task ID to update', 'priority' as 'New priority 0-10'). The description repeats this information in the 'Args' section without adding new meaning, such as format examples beyond YYYY-MM-DD for dates or units for 'max_time'/'max_money'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('existing task'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'worksection_create_task' (creation vs. update) and 'worksection_complete_task' (completion vs. update), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'worksection_update_project' (task vs. project). The description is specific but could be slightly more differentiated from other update 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., task must exist), contrast with sibling tools like 'worksection_set_task_tags' for tag-specific updates, or specify scenarios where this is appropriate (e.g., partial updates vs. full replacements). Usage is implied by the tool name but not explicitly stated.

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