Vaiz 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 mentions that the description field is 'short plain-text summary (NOT Markdown)' which adds useful context about format limitations, but doesn't cover other behavioral aspects like permissions needed, whether creation is reversible, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The description adds some value but leaves significant gaps.

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 perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by specific guidance. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information about parameter constraints and alternative tool usage. There is zero wasted text.

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 creation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does an adequate job but has clear gaps. It provides good guidance on the description parameter and tool alternatives, but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, error conditions, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity and lack of structured data, more completeness would be beneficial.

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?

With only 20% schema description coverage (only the 'description' parameter has documentation in the schema), the description compensates well by providing crucial semantic context for the 'description' parameter: 'The description field is a short plain-text summary (NOT Markdown).' This adds meaning beyond what the schema provides and helps the agent understand format constraints. However, it doesn't address the other 4 parameters.

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 specific action ('Create a new milestone') and resource ('in a board'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_task or create_task_comment. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 explicitly provides when-not-to-use guidance: 'To add rich document content, use edit_document_content after creation.' It names a specific alternative tool (edit_document_content) and clarifies the separation of concerns between plain-text metadata and rich document content.

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