Zaim API MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly states deletion is permanent ('永続的') and irreversible ('復元できません'). However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 immediately states the tool's purpose and critical behavioral warning. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides essential context about permanence. However, it lacks information about authentication requirements, error responses, or what happens after deletion that would make it fully complete.

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 both parameters (id and mode with enum values). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score.

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 ('削除します' - delete) and resource ('Zaimの家計簿記録' - Zaim household accounting records). It distinguishes from sibling tools like zaim_get_money_records (read) and zaim_update_money_record (update) by specifying deletion.

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 implies usage when permanent deletion of a money record is needed, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like zaim_update_money_record for modifications or when not to use it. No prerequisites or comparison to siblings is provided.

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