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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavior: default activation, agent tool naming (<slug>__<tool>), access gating, the approval pipeline on every call, and the follow-up credential workflows per holder type. It stops short of error/failure behavior, but the added context is well beyond the annotations.

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 core action, then agent-access implications, then credential follow-ups. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information.

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 create tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description covers activation, downstream gating, and credential handling thoroughly. It does not indicate how to reference the newly created server (id/slug) for the follow-up calls it recommends, a minor gap.

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 url/tunnel_id exclusivity, scope structure, and slug rules in detail. The description restates activate's default and the slug naming, adding marginal value beyond the schema baseline.

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 and resource ('Register an MCP server on the gateway with its first revision') and distinguishes itself from sibling creation tools like create_pipeline and create_agent. The description makes clear this creates the server and its initial revision together.

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 clear workflow context: activate defaults to true, tools are gated by set_agent_tool_access, and credentials are stored afterwards with set_gateway_scope_headers or via the app. It does not explicitly contrast with update_gateway_server or archive_gateway_server, but the create-vs-update distinction is unambiguous from the description.

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