codecks-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies mutation, it doesn't address critical aspects like permissions needed, whether updates are atomic or batched, error handling (though 'continue_on_error' parameter exists), or what happens when updating multiple cards versus single cards. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 - just two sentences that directly state the purpose and provide specific examples. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose followed by clarifying detail about 'Doc cards'.

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 13 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address the tool's behavioral characteristics, error scenarios, permissions, or return values. While it provides some parameter context, it leaves too many gaps for an agent to confidently use this tool without trial and error.

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?

With 54% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by specifying which properties can be updated for 'Doc cards' (owner/tags/milestone/deck/title/content/hero). This provides semantic context that the schema alone doesn't offer, though it doesn't cover all 13 parameters. The description effectively compensates for the schema's partial coverage by highlighting key updatable fields.

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 ('card properties'), and provides specific examples of what can be updated for 'Doc cards'. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from other card-modification siblings like 'archive_card', 'delete_card', or 'mark_done', which reduces it from a perfect score.

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. With multiple sibling tools that modify cards (e.g., 'archive_card', 'mark_done', 'create_card'), there's no indication of when this general update tool is preferred over more specific operations. The mention of 'Doc cards' implies some context but doesn't establish clear usage boundaries.

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