opencode_mcp_add

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnly=false, so the description doesn't need to restate that. However, it adds little behavioral context beyond 'dynamically'—it doesn't mention whether it modifies configuration files, persists across restarts, or affects running sessions. It doesn't contradict annotations but adds minimal value beyond what annotations already imply.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficient—there is 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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with a nested config object and an output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the effect of the directory parameter, how the config object is used, or any side effects. The presence of many siblings also calls for more context to guide tool selection.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific meaning; it just says 'Add an MCP server' without referencing the name, config, or directory parameters. It thus doesn't exceed the baseline provided by the schema.

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 a specific action (add) and resource (MCP server) with context ('dynamically to opencode'). It is distinct from siblings like config_update or mcp_status, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate. The verb and resource are clear and unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like config_update or mcp_status. No context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The description leaves usage entirely to the agent to infer.

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