Skema 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. It states the tool deletes an item, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't add context such as whether deletions are permanent, require specific permissions, have side effects (e.g., cascading deletions), or include rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 sentence in French that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly, with every part contributing 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?

Given the tool's complexity as a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., deletion consequences), usage context, or return values, which are critical for safe and effective tool invocation in this scenario.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('collection' and 'id'). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter formats or constraints), so it meets the baseline score of 3 where 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 ('Supprime' meaning 'Deletes') and the target ('un item d'une collection' meaning 'an item from a collection'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'batch_update_items' or 'update_collection_item' which might also modify collection items, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing collection/item), exclusions (e.g., not for batch deletions), or refer to sibling tools like 'batch_update_items' for multiple deletions, leaving the agent with minimal context for tool selection.

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