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 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify whether this is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting linked data). This is a significant gap 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, direct sentence with zero wasted words—'Delete an external debt entry.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

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 (a destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 1 undocumented parameter), the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details like behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, permissions), parameter semantics, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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 (debt_id) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic context. The tool description doesn't add any parameter information—it doesn't explain what 'debt_id' represents, its format, or where to obtain it. This fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving the parameter undocumented.

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 'Delete an external debt entry' clearly states the action (delete) and target resource (external debt entry), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update_external_debt_tool' or 'list_external_debts_tool', which would be needed for 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. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing debt entry), exclusions, or how it differs from related tools like 'update_external_debt_tool' or 'remove_institution_tool'. This leaves the agent with minimal context for decision-making.

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