plaid-mcp

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. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to fields not mentioned. For a mutation tool with 8 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 that communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. 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 mutation tool with 8 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes an 'external debt', what fields are updatable, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively.

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 description mentions updating 'fields' which maps to the 7 optional parameters in the schema, but doesn't provide any additional semantic meaning beyond what's implied by the parameter names. With 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't compensate by explaining what each field represents, their formats, or constraints. The baseline is 3 since it at least acknowledges parameters exist.

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 ('update') and resource ('existing external debt'), and specifies it can update 'any subset of fields', which adds useful detail. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'remove_external_debt_tool' or 'list_external_debts_tool' beyond the basic verb difference.

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 'add_external_debt_tool' for creating new debts or 'remove_external_debt_tool' for deletion. It mentions 'existing external debt' which implies a prerequisite that the debt must already exist, but doesn't state this explicitly or reference other tools.

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