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. 'Restore' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error conditions (e.g., invalid card_id), or side effects. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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, and there's no unnecessary elaboration.

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 behavior, error handling, and return values, which are essential for an agent to use the tool correctly. The description is too minimal for a tool that modifies state.

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%, with the single parameter 'card_id' documented as a 'Full 36-char UUID'. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, but with only one parameter and high coverage, the baseline is 4. No additional param info is needed.

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 ('Restore') and resource ('an archived card'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from 'archive_card' by indicating the opposite action, though it doesn't explicitly mention sibling tools. The description is specific but could be more precise about what 'restore' entails.

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 or prerequisites. It doesn't mention if the card must be archived first, what happens if it's already unarchived, or how it relates to tools like 'get_card' or 'update_cards'. 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.