nocobase-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 and effectively discloses key behavioral traits: it's destructive (deletes the model) and has cascading effects (removes child blocks). This goes beyond what the input schema alone would indicate, though it could mention permissions or error handling.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the purpose and critical behavioral warning. Every word serves a clear purpose without redundancy.

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 destructive nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete—it covers the action, target, and cascading effects. However, it could benefit from mentioning return values or error conditions to be fully comprehensive.

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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which already has 100% coverage with a clear parameter description. It mentions the UID is used for deletion but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or validation rules.

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 ('Delete'), target resource ('a flowPage block/model'), and method ('by UID'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_flow_model' or 'move_flow_model' which perform different operations on similar resources.

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 when deletion is needed but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'remove_ui_schema' or 'batch_patch_ui_schema'. It mentions the destructive nature but lacks specific guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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