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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the first revision is activated unless activate is false, that agents only receive tools granted through set_agent_tool_access, and that every call passes through approval pipelines. It also explains the credential-handling consequences for organization-held, OAuth, and member-held scopes.

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 three tightly packed sentences with the core creation behavior front-loaded. The remaining sentences add relevant access-control and credential follow-up context without wasting space.

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 complex create tool, the description plus schema covers activation, access control, approval behavior, and credential follow-up well. Since there is no output schema, the description is slightly incomplete about what the create call returns, but it provides enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 all six parameters in detail. The description reinforces some parameter behavior, especially activation and scope credential modes, but mostly repeats schema-level semantics rather than adding new parameter syntax or constraints.

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 states a specific verb and resource: register an MCP server on the gateway with its first revision and activate it by default. It also distinguishes this creation flow from later revision activation by describing the first-revision behavior and the activation default.

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 gives clear post-creation guidance for credential setup, naming set_gateway_scope_headers for organization-held scopes and explaining how OAuth and member-held scopes are connected. It does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus update_gateway_server or activate_gateway_server_revision, so it stops short of full alternative guidance.

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