nocobase-mcp-server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'partial update' but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Patch'), permission requirements, idempotency, error handling, or side effects. For a tool that modifies data, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity of a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., what happens on failure), return values, or usage context. For a tool that patches UI schemas—a potentially destructive operation—this minimal description is inadequate.

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 fully documents both parameters (uid and patch). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples for the patch object or UID constraints. 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 action ('Patch'), resource ('UI schema node'), and method ('by UID, partial update'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'remove_ui_schema' (delete) and 'insert_new_schema' (create), though not explicitly. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'batch_patch_ui_schema' (batch vs single) or 'update_flow_js_block' (different resource type).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., UID must exist), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'batch_patch_ui_schema' for multiple updates or 'update_flow_js_block' for different resources. The description implies usage for partial updates but lacks context about when this is appropriate.

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