Knowledge MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses behavioral traits like 'Precise section removal', 'Preserves all other content', and 'Clean removal without traces'. It also provides implementation guidance (e.g., 'Verify section exists before removal'). However, it doesn't mention error conditions, permissions needed, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 well-structured with clear sections ('When to use', 'Key features', 'You should', 'DO NOT use', 'Returns'), but could be more concise. Some points in 'You should' (e.g., 'Document why section is being removed') are implementation advice rather than essential tool description, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the tool's behavior, usage guidelines, and return format. However, it lacks details on error handling (beyond the return structure) and doesn't explicitly state this is a mutation operation, though that's implied by 'Remove'. Given the complexity, it's mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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 thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'exact section header with "## " prefix' which is already in the schema's pattern, and implies the section must exist (in 'You should' list). 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 tool removes a specific section from the project main.md file, using the specific verb 'remove' with the resource 'section from project main.md file'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_project_section' (which modifies rather than removes) and 'delete_project' (which deletes the entire project).

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 explicit 'When to use this tool' with four specific scenarios (e.g., 'Removing deprecated or obsolete sections') and 'DO NOT use when' with three clear exclusions (e.g., 'Section contains important information'). It also implicitly distinguishes from alternatives like 'update_project_section' by emphasizing removal rather than updating.

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