Vaiz MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that this is a mutation operation ('Toggle'), explains the directional relationship semantics, and notes the need for database IDs. However, it doesn't cover permissions, side effects, or what happens if the relationship already exists.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: first states the core purpose, second explains all parameters and provides a practical tip. Every element adds value, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining parameters and behavior. It could be more complete by mentioning what the toggle does (adds/removes?) and the response format, but covers the essentials given the context.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: 'taskId' and 'blockerTaskId' require database IDs (with a tip to use search), and 'direction' is defined with enum values ('blockers' vs 'blocking') and their meaning relative to taskId.

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 ('Toggle a blocker relationship between two tasks') and resource ('tasks'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_task' or 'edit_task'. It precisely defines what the tool does beyond just the name.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to manage task dependencies) and mentions using 'search' to find task IDs, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. It gives practical guidance without full exclusion rules.

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