Graforest MCP

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, etc., covering safety and mutability. The description adds valuable context by emphasizing 'ALL its data' and 'cannot be undone,' which reinforces the destructive nature beyond the annotation, but does not detail error handling or permissions.

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 front-loaded with the core action and critical warning in just two sentences, with zero wasted words. Every sentence earns its place by conveying essential information efficiently.

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 (destructive deletion) and lack of output schema, the description is mostly complete by highlighting irreversibility. However, it could improve by mentioning potential side effects or confirmation steps, though annotations cover key behavioral traits.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'project_id' fully documented as a UUID. The description does not add any extra semantic details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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 explicitly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a graph project and ALL its data'), making the purpose specific and clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_knowledge_project' or 'list_knowledge_projects' by focusing on removal rather than creation or listing.

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 with 'DESTRUCTIVE — cannot be undone,' indicating when to use it cautiously. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., archiving instead of deleting) or prerequisites (e.g., ensuring no dependencies), which prevents a perfect score.

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