yapi_configure

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden; it discloses two non-obvious behaviors: settings are session-scoped and override env/file, and the raw token must never be echoed back. It omits error behavior, whether settings persist across restarts, and what clearing secrets actually does.

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 action, then precedence, then the triggering scenario, then the security rule. No filler; every sentence adds a distinct fact.

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?

The description covers purpose, precedence, and when to invoke, and an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. However, for a six-parameter mutation tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the untouched parameters (notably clear_secrets and timeout) are a real completeness gap.

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% and the schema only provides titles, so the description must compensate. It names only host/token (via 'pastes host/token'), leaving cookie, timeout, base_url, and clear_secrets entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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: 'Set runtime connection settings for this MCP session', and adds the scope constraint '(overrides env/file)'. It is clearly distinct from the read-only sibling yapi_get_config, though it does not name that sibling 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 explicit when-not guidance ('Prefer env vars or `.yapi-mcp.json` for durable config') and an explicit when-to condition ('Use this when the user pastes host/token in chat'). The agent can decide between this tool and out-of-band configuration without inference.

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