Crownpeak DQM MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing content not mentioned. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part earning its place by specifying the action, target, and content types.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error conditions, response format, or how updates affect related operations (e.g., asset status or checkpoints). For a tool that modifies resources in a system with many sibling tools, more context is needed.

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 4 parameters (assetId, url, html, metadata) with their types and descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'URL or HTML' content, but doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., url vs html exclusivity) or provide additional context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 asset') with specific content types ('URL or HTML'). It distinguishes from siblings like delete_asset or get_asset by focusing on modification rather than deletion or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update-like operations that might exist in the context.

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., needing an existing asset ID), when not to use it (e.g., for creating new assets), or how it relates to siblings like search_assets or run_quality_check. Usage is implied 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.