plaid-mcp

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 removes an APR override, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether the action is reversible, or what happens on success/failure (e.g., confirmation message or error). 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 with zero wasted words, directly stating the tool's function. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary detail.

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 mutation operation with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling or return values, nor does it fully explain parameter usage, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective 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?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies 'account_id' is used to identify the target account, which adds basic meaning, but doesn't specify format (e.g., numeric ID, string) or validation rules. This provides marginal value, aligning with the baseline for partial compensation.

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 target ('APR override for an account'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_account_override_tool' or 'list_overrides_tool', which would require mentioning those alternatives to achieve a perfect score.

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 'set_account_override_tool' (for adding/updating overrides) or 'list_overrides_tool' (for viewing them). It also lacks prerequisites, such as whether an override must exist to be removed, leaving the agent with insufficient context for optimal selection.

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