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

Annotations only cover idempotency and non-destructiveness; the description adds substantial behaviour beyond them — 404 when nothing is declared, that the tool grants nothing beyond the route and app guards apply unchanged, that declarations are explicit rather than derived from pushed code, the beta SDK/2026-07-28 revision caveat, and a data-vs-instructions prompt-injection warning. This is well above the bar set by 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?

Front-loads the core capability and URL before the action breakdown, and every clause carries operational weight (byte limits, prefix rule, 16-tool cap, 404 condition). It is dense — parenthetical asides and the SDK-revision note lengthen it — but nothing is filler.

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 7-parameter mutation-style tool with no output schema, this covers preconditions, limits, action semantics, and the safety caveat on returned data. Remaining gaps are the undocumented managementToken (auth requirement) and the shape of what 'lister' returns, though the data-not-instructions warning partly addresses the latter.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it constrains name (lowercase, no 'dropyour_' prefix and why), description (≤500 bytes), inputSchema (JSON Schema, ≤4KB), and route (the app path the call POSTs to). Gaps remain — dropId's 8-char pattern and managementToken are never explained in prose.

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: makes the caller's app callable as an MCP server at a concrete URL, and enumerates the three actions (declarer/retirer/lister) with what each does. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like dropyour_publish or dropyour_graduate without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes across the three action values: declare ONE tool, revoke that surface, or inspect what is declared. It also states the precondition that makes the surface exist at all ('live as soon as ONE tool is declared; no tool declared = no /mcp at all (404)') and the 16-tool ceiling.

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