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 of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the tool's behavior: it's a 'FULL REPLACE operation' that overwrites the entire config, details null handling (null strips fields, omitted fields not preserved), specifies internal fields that are preserved automatically, explains priority between filePath and agentConfig, and states role requirements. This provides rich behavioral context beyond basic function.

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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, null handling, workflow, input options, requirements) and uses bold for key points. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose, subsequent sections explain critical behaviors, and it ends with role requirements. There's no wasted text, and information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 the tool's complexity (mutation operation with 3 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, behavior, usage guidelines, and parameter context. However, it doesn't describe the return value or error conditions, which would be helpful for a mutation tool. The absence of output schema means the agent doesn't know what to expect after invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the relationship between agentId and filePath ('If not provided and filePath contains _agentId, that will be used'), clarifies that agentConfig is a 'fallback if filePath is not provided', and emphasizes filePath as 'preferred'. However, it doesn't add syntax or format details for parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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's purpose: 'Import/replace an agent's FULL configuration from a local JSON file or from a JSON object.' It specifies the verb (import/replace), resource (agent's FULL configuration), and distinguishes from sibling update_agent for partial updates. This is specific and differentiates from alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'For partial updates (changing just one field), use update_agent instead.' It also outlines a preferred workflow (export → edit → import) and specifies prerequisites ('Requires role: owner, admin, or developer'). This covers when, when-not, alternatives, and context comprehensively.

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