SINT Protocol

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Remove' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether this action is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects system stability, or has side effects like stopping processes. For a tool that likely modifies system state, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. It efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration, earning full marks for brevity and clarity.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, and the tool's likely destructive nature (implied by 'Remove'), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address key contextual aspects like what 'downstream MCP server' entails, confirmation requirements, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information for safe and effective use.

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 'name' clearly documented in the schema as 'Name of the server to remove'. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond this, such as format examples or naming conventions, so it meets the baseline for adequate but not enhanced parameter understanding.

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 ('Remove') and the resource ('a downstream MCP server by name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like sint__revoke_delegation_tree or sint__revoke_token, which might also involve removal operations in different contexts.

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, such as sint__servers (which might list servers) or sint__revoke_token (which might remove tokens). There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate contexts for removal, leaving the agent with insufficient usage direction.

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