What kind of change is waiting

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations it discloses what the tool withholds (the changed text), the return granularity (one entry per changed tool, prompt or instruction block), and the full set of label keys, plus a critical authorization constraint about approval. That is rich behavioral context the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and precondition before the return details, and every sentence is functional. The long enumeration of label keys is informative but slightly bulky.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the return shape and label keys, and it names the upstream tool that supplies the id. Nothing needed to call or interpret it is missing.

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% and the schema already documents id's source and 16-hex pattern. The description's 'the 16-character server id from mcp_pin_my_servers' largely restates the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (explain) and resource (the change mcp-pin blocked on one pinned server), and explicitly scopes it as metadata-only: 'without the changed text.' It is clearly differentiated from mcp_pin_my_servers, which it names as the precondition tool.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use it after mcp_pin_my_servers shows pending: true'), the intent ('to tell the user what they are about to review'), and a hard exclusion ('never run "mcp-pin approve" for them'). When, why, and what-not are all covered.

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