WayStation MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states this is an update operation, it lacks critical details such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling for invalid inputs, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 action ('Updates an existing Asana task') and lists key fields without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or response format, which are crucial for an AI agent to use it correctly. The schema covers parameters well, but the overall context for safe and effective usage is lacking.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters thoroughly. The description lists the updatable fields (e.g., name, notes) but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description adds minimal value by summarizing fields.

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 verb ('Updates') and resource ('an existing Asana task') with specific fields that can be modified ('name, notes, due date, assignee, completion status, or custom fields'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'createAsanaTask' by specifying it updates existing tasks rather than creating new ones, though it doesn't explicitly compare to other update tools like 'updateAirtableRecord' or 'updateJiraIssue'.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid task ID), compare to similar tools like 'updateAirtableRecord', or specify scenarios where this is preferred over other Asana tools like 'createAsanaTask' or 'readAsanaTask'. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly defined.

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