Piskel MCP Server

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 but fails completely. 'Delete a project' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but the description doesn't confirm this, mention any confirmation prompts, warn about cascading effects (e.g., deleting associated frames/layers), specify permission requirements, or describe what happens on success/failure. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is dangerously inadequate.

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 maximally concise at three words with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential operation, making it structurally efficient despite its informational deficiencies.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't address critical context: the irreversible nature of deletion, potential side effects, required permissions, error conditions, or what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation or error message). Given the high-stakes nature of deletion operations, this minimal description fails to provide adequate guidance.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with a single parameter 'projectId' documented as 'Project identifier'. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides—it doesn't explain format requirements, where to obtain the ID, or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Delete a project' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. While it correctly identifies the verb ('Delete') and resource ('project'), it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'remove_frame' or 'remove_layer' that also perform deletion operations on different resources. The description lacks specificity about what constitutes a 'project' in this context.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the project must exist, be empty, or have specific permissions), no indication of when NOT to use it (e.g., irreversible consequences), and no reference to related tools like 'list_projects' for identification or 'create_project' for creation. The agent receives zero contextual guidance.

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