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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds real context beyond them: approvals for tools that no longer exist are dropped (explains the destructive side effect), the binding must be ready (prerequisite), and 'Requires config:write' (auth scope). No contradiction with the mutation/destructive profile.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, followed by prerequisite and auth requirement. Dense but every clause carries distinct information with little waste.

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?

No output schema, so return semantics are not required, and the description covers effect, prerequisite, exclusion, and auth scope. Missing only the approval workflow/return detail, which is minor for a well-annotated mutation tool.

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% and both projectId and serverName are documented in the schema with examples and a pattern. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: snapshotting the bound server's current tool list, including the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations, for approval. It is clearly about tool-list refresh rather than generic config, though it doesn't name a sibling (e.g. list_mcp_servers or bind_mcp_server) to explicitly contrast with.

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?

Gives a clear context and an exclusion: the binding must be ready and 'a server inside the sandbox has no gateway tool list', which implies when this cannot be used. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for those cases, but the when/when-not conditions are stated.

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