platform_mcp_servers

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions that authentication uses authProfileId and raw credentials are never accepted, which is useful, but it does not explain side effects of actions like 'delete' or 'disconnect', whether operations are reversible, or permission requirements. The action list names operations but without behavioral context.

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 of moderate length and does start with a clear purpose after an unnecessary '[Arch Build]' prefix. The action list is valuable and front-loaded. However, the opening sentence about Arch creates general context that distracts from the core purpose. It is structured but could be tighter.

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 23 parameters, 13 actions, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain how parameters differ per action, what each action returns, or error conditions. Even basic context like the relationship between serverId and projectId is missing. This tool cannot be correctly used based on the description alone.

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 a mere 4%, so the description must compensate heavily. It only mentions authProfileId and the action parameter implicitly. None of the 23 parameters are described in the text, and the schema itself lacks descriptions except for authType. There is no mapping of which parameters apply to which actions. This is a critical gap for a tool with this parameter count.

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 this tool provisions MCP servers and turns discovered server tools into project tools, listing 13 distinct actions. The verb 'provision' and resource 'MCP servers' are specific. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'platform_tools' (managing project tools) and 'platform_connect' (connections) but does not explicitly name those alternatives, so it is not a full 5.

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 gives context on what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it versus sibling tools. It does not state exclusions, alternatives, or specific conditions for selection. An agent has to infer usage from the action list alone, which is insufficient for 13 actions.

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