mcp-esa-server-python

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 states the action ('Delete') but doesn't mention critical traits like whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., affecting linked content), or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure). This leaves significant gaps for a destructive 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core action stated first ('Delete a post on esa.io') followed by parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. There's minimal waste, though the formatting could be slightly more polished.

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 destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, permissions), usage context, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 adds meaning by explaining that 'post_number' identifies 'The number of the post to delete,' which clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema's title ('Post Number'). However, it doesn't provide additional context like format examples or constraints, leaving some ambiguity.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a post on esa.io'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like posts_update (which might also modify posts) or mention that deletion is permanent versus other operations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like posts_update for modifications or posts_get_detail for viewing. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing proper permissions) or exclusions (e.g., not for bulk deletion).

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