DollhouseMCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the conditional behavior (read vs. write based on client_id presence), validation requirements, and persistence ('saves it to config'). However, it doesn't mention potential error conditions, permission requirements, or what 'configuration status' includes, leaving some behavioral aspects unclear.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states the core functionality, second explains conditional behavior, third provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of purpose, usage, and basic behavior. However, it doesn't describe what 'configuration status' includes as output or potential error scenarios, leaving some gaps in complete understanding of tool behavior.

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 fully documents the client_id parameter format. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the parameter affects tool behavior (read vs. write mode) but doesn't provide additional semantic context about the parameter's role or implications.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('configure', 'shows', 'validates', 'saves') and resources ('GitHub OAuth client ID', 'configuration status'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'check_github_auth' and 'setup_github_auth' by focusing on configuration management rather than authentication checking or initial setup.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when users need to set up OAuth or check their configuration') and provides clear conditional logic for different scenarios (with or without client_id). It implicitly distinguishes from alternatives by focusing on configuration rather than authentication flow or status checking.

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