Server has 4 tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but significant gaps limit production readiness. All tools have descriptions (10-80 chars, below ideal 50-200 char range) and input schemas are present but minimal. Parameter descriptions are sparse or missing entirely. No output schemas documented. Error handling is absent, no recovery guidance, categorization, or actionable error messages. Tool naming follows verb_noun convention (list_, get_, upload_, append_) but descriptions lack context on WHEN to use each tool or what downstream tools expect. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint/destructiveHint) despite clear risk profiles (2 WRITE tools, 2 READ_ONLY). Composition is reasonable, tools are single-purpose, but responses lack chaining IDs and pagination support.

• Document output schemas for all tools. Example: list_active_projects should return {projects: [{id, name, status, completionPercent}], total: number}. This enables LLMs to chain tools correctly.
• Expand tool descriptions to 100-200 chars. Include WHEN to use (e.g., 'Call this first to discover available projects before fetching execution context') and what the tool returns.
• Add descriptions to all parameters. For projectId, specify: 'The unique project identifier (UUID format, obtained from list_active_projects)'. For optional params like itemId, clarify: 'If omitted, returns context for the next pending item.'
• Implement structured error responses with recovery guidance. Instead of raw Zod errors, return {error: 'Invalid projectId format', suggestion: 'Call list_active_projects to get valid IDs', retryable: false}.
• Add tool annotations: mark upload_generated_image and append_project_log with destructiveHint=true; mark list_active_projects and get_project_execution_context with readOnlyHint=true. This guides agent retry logic.