replace_guardrail_mcp_servers

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that omitted servers are deleted, that an empty object clears every mapping, that the guardrail must target mcp_tools, and it confirms idempotency ('Repeating the same complete map is safe'). This gives the agent the exact destruction semantics of a destructiveHint=true operation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then constraints and the read-first instruction. No 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 destructive replace-all mutation with nested objects, it covers prerequisites, destruction behavior, clear semantics, idempotency, and required prior read. An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation.

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, but the description adds real semantics: mcp_servers is a full replacement set (not a merge) and an empty object is the clear-all sentinel. That meaning is not fully conveyed by the schema alone.

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: 'Replace the complete MCP-server mapping set for one guardrail.' The word 'complete' meaningfully separates it from the sibling upsert_guardrail_mcp_server, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite ('Requires a guardrail with target mcp_tools') and an explicit read-before-write instruction ('Read list_guardrail_mcp_servers first'). It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over upsert_guardrail_mcp_server, which is the closest alternative.

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