qune-tech/ocds-mcp

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 adds useful context: 'Only provided fields are changed' clarifies partial update behavior, and 'If the description changes, the profile is automatically re-embedded' indicates a side effect. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 and efficiently adds two key behavioral details in separate sentences. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct value: the first states the action, the second clarifies update semantics, and the third notes an automatic side effect. No wasted words.

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?

For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the update mechanism and one side effect, but lacks details on permissions, error cases, or return values. Given the complexity, it should do more to compensate for missing structured data, though it's not entirely 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 all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'id' or 'categories' further). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have enhanced understanding of parameter interactions.

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 ('a company profile'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_company_profile' and 'delete_company_profile' by specifying it modifies existing profiles, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_company_profile' or others.

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 like 'create_company_profile' or 'delete_company_profile'. It mentions that 'Only provided fields are changed', which hints at partial updates, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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