codecks-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses 'No auth needed' which is useful behavioral context, and 'mechanically' implies automated or systematic updates. However, it doesn't describe what 'Update planning files' entails—whether it creates, modifies, or deletes data, what the response looks like, error handling, or side effects. For a mutation tool with 11 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: the first states the purpose and auth context, the second lists operations. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the operation list is somewhat dense and could benefit from grouping or categorization, but it remains efficient without 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?

Given high complexity (11 parameters, mutation tool, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, return values, error conditions, and behavioral nuances. While it covers auth needs and operation types, it doesn't provide enough context for an agent to reliably invoke this tool, especially with many undocumented parameters and no output guidance.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists operations ('goal, advance, phase_status, error, decision, finding, issue, log, file_changed, test') which maps to the 'operation' parameter's enum values, adding semantic meaning. However, it doesn't explain the other 10 parameters (e.g., 'text', 'phase', 'status'), their relationships to operations, or provide examples. With 11 total parameters and only 1 addressed, the description inadequately compensates for the schema gap.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update planning files mechanically' with a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('planning files'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'planning_init', 'planning_status', and 'planning_measure' by focusing on mechanical updates rather than initialization, status checks, or measurements. However, it doesn't fully differentiate from 'update_cards' which might also update planning-related items.

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 minimal guidance: 'No auth needed' indicates when authentication isn't required, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_cards' or other planning tools. It lists operations but doesn't explain when to choose specific operations or provide context for tool selection. No explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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