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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, so 'safe to repeat' largely restates structured data. The description does add real information — the change takes effect from the agent's next message — but it fails to explain what the destructiveHint=true actually affects or what an unstated removal looks like.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then scoping, then effect. No filler or redundancy.

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 exists, and four parameters have zero schema descriptions. The description covers the two most ambiguous parameters and the effect timing, but omits validation rules and what 'destructive' means here, leaving gaps for a mutating, agent-modifying operation.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden; it does explain the nodeIds/allNodes distinction well. It leaves connectionId and agentId sourcing unexplained and gives no conflict/default rule when the two node parameters interact, so it only partially compensates.

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 ('adds it to the agent's start node') plus the effect ('agent can use the server's tools from its next message'). It does not explicitly reference the sibling detach_mcp_connection or create_mcp_connect_link, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 clarifies the nodeIds vs allNodes scoping choice and notes 'Safe to repeat', which are useful usage cues. However, it never says when to prefer this over detach_mcp_connection or create_mcp_connect_link, nor what happens if both nodeIds and allNodes are supplied.

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