mcp-esa-server-python

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 states this is an update operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, what permissions are needed, if it's idempotent, what happens on partial updates, or error conditions. The description only lists parameters without behavioral 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured parameter list. However, the parameter explanations are somewhat redundant with the schema descriptions, and there's no wasted text, though it could be more efficient by omitting parameter details already in the schema.

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 this is a mutation tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as authentication requirements, error handling, what the update returns (e.g., success confirmation or updated post data), and how it interacts with sibling tools. The high parameter coverage doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output information.

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 high (86%), with all parameters except post_number having descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it repeats parameter names and brief explanations but doesn't provide additional semantics like format examples (e.g., category path syntax) or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does most of the work.

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 'Update an existing post on esa.io' which specifies the verb (update), resource (post), and platform (esa.io). It distinguishes from siblings like posts_create (create) and posts_delete (delete), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from posts_get_detail or posts_get_list beyond the update action.

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. While the description implies it's for updating existing posts (vs. creating new ones with posts_create), there's no explicit mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or how it relates to other tools like posts_get_detail for retrieving posts before updating.

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