Refgrow MCP Server

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. While 'update' implies mutation, it doesn't specify required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or what the response looks like. The description adds minimal 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, and the second provides practical examples. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy to parse.

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 mutation nature of the tool, 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, or output format, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions 'value' and 'paid' as common updates, which aligns with the schema but doesn't add significant meaning beyond it. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when 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 ('update') and resource ('conversion's details'), and provides specific examples of common updates ('mark as paid or update its value'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'update_affiliate' or 'update_coupon' beyond the resource name.

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_conversion' or 'get_conversion', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'commonly used' hints at typical scenarios but doesn't offer explicit usage rules.

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