Crownpeak DQM MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes an asset, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify if deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., on related data), or provides confirmation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Delete a specific asset') without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by specifying the resource and storage context, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (a destructive mutation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical aspects like irreversibility, error handling, or response format, leaving the agent with insufficient context for safe and effective use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'assetId' fully documented in the schema as 'The ID of the asset to delete'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 action ('Delete') and target resource ('a specific asset from DQM storage'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_asset' or 'search_assets', but the verb 'Delete' is distinct enough to imply a destructive operation versus read-only siblings like 'get_asset'.

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., asset must exist), exclusions (e.g., irreversible nature), or comparisons to siblings like 'update_asset' for modifications. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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