manage_tools

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, non-destructive, and non-read-only behavior. The description adds that operations happen 'at runtime' and lists actions, but it does not disclose potential side effects such as persistence, impact on active tool calls, or what 'reset' fully restores.

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 concise, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and the action list is an efficient overview. No filler or redundant detail.

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 schema covers all parameters and provides action-level descriptions, but the description omits important management semantics such as conditional requirements (e.g., category needed for category actions) and consequences of reset or disabling. Given the tool's mutation capabilities, this leaves notable gaps.

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%, with each parameter described including detailed enum values for action. The description's action list adds no information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific purpose: dynamic management of MCP tools and categories with enable/disable actions. It clearly differentiates from sibling manage_* tools by identifying its resource as the MCP tools themselves rather than game assets or systems.

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 provides clear context: use this tool for runtime enable/disable of tools and categories. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the resource and action list make the intended usage apparent.

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