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 effectively describes key behavioral aspects: the creation action, template hydration process, and role requirements. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., whether this affects existing agents), rate limits, or error conditions that would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured with three focused paragraphs: purpose/mechanism, workflow guidance, and access requirements. Every sentence adds value with zero redundancy, making it easy to parse while being comprehensive.

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?

For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the template mechanism, hydration process, prerequisites, and workflow. The main gap is the lack of information about what the tool returns (output format) and potential error cases, which would help the agent understand the complete interaction.

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 already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds context about business data being 'automatically hydrated into the template placeholders,' which helps explain the relationship between parameters and template variables, but doesn't provide additional parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema.

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 tool creates a new agent from a pre-built template, specifying the exact resource (agent) and mechanism (template). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_agent (which presumably creates from scratch) by emphasizing the template-based approach with pre-configured components.

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 explicit guidance: 'Use list_templates first to see available templates' and 'Requires role: owner, admin, or developer.' It clearly indicates prerequisites and the recommended workflow, helping the agent understand when and how to use this tool versus alternatives.

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