BotUyo MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the agent is created in 'draft' status, configuration requires a separate tool ('update_agent'), and specific roles are needed. However, it lacks details on rate limits, error conditions, or response format, leaving some gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by status details, usage guidance, and prerequisites in three concise sentences. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, status, usage flow, and permissions. However, it omits details on the return value (e.g., agent ID or object) and potential errors, which could be critical for a creation tool, slightly reducing completeness.

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%, so the schema fully documents the three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 the specific action ('Create a new agent') and resource ('for the tenant'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'update_agent' or 'list_agents'. It specifies the initial status ('draft') and mentions subsequent configuration steps, providing precise differentiation.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('to create a new agent') and when not to ('Use update_agent to configure identity, stages, and tools afterward'), naming the alternative. It also specifies prerequisites ('Requires role: owner, admin, or developer'), offering comprehensive guidance.

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