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 states 'Edit' implies mutation but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by including key details like required parameters or usage context, which would improve clarity without sacrificing brevity.

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 (mutation with nested parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, parameter meanings, or return values, leaving the agent with inadequate information to use the tool effectively beyond its basic intent.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter (a nested object with 11 properties), the schema alone documents structure but not semantics. The description fails to explain what 'data' contains or how to use fields like 'priority' with enum values, resulting in a baseline score due to lack of 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 ('Edit') and resource ('an existing task in the Vaiz workspace'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'edit_document_content' or specify what aspects of a task can be edited beyond the basic concept.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing task ID), contrast with 'create_task' for new tasks, or explain when to use 'get_task' for viewing versus editing. The description offers only basic usage context.

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