Skema MCP Server

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 it indicates a batch update operation, it doesn't describe permissions required, whether updates are atomic/transactional, error handling for partial failures, rate limits, or what the response contains. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient French sentence that communicates the core functionality without waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential information.

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 batch mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens during execution, what constitutes success/failure, or what data is returned. The agent lacks critical context for proper 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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('collection' and 'items'). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific context beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 ('Met à jour' - updates) and resource ('plusieurs items' - multiple items) with the operational context ('en une seule requête' - in a single request). It distinguishes from the sibling 'update_collection_item' by specifying batch capability, though it doesn't explicitly name the alternative.

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 'update_collection_item' or 'batch_create_items'. It mentions batch capability but doesn't specify thresholds, prerequisites, or trade-offs for choosing this over single-item updates.

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