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 and excels. It details the partial merge behavior, field handling rules (omitted, set, null deletion), deep-merge for nested objects, array replacement, and permission requirements. This provides comprehensive behavioral context beyond what the input schema alone offers.

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 (purpose, field behavior, nested objects, arrays, usage guidance, permissions). Every sentence adds value: the first sentence states the core purpose, subsequent sections explain behavioral nuances, and final sentences provide usage differentiation and prerequisites. No wasted words.

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 complex mutation tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, usage guidelines, and permissions. The only minor gap is the lack of information about return values or error conditions, but given the comprehensive behavioral disclosure, this is a strong description.

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 significant value by explaining the semantics of how parameters are processed: partial merge behavior, field handling rules (omitted/set/null), deep-merge for nested objects, and array replacement. However, it doesn't provide specific examples for all parameter types beyond the widgetConfig example.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Update an agent's configuration with partial merge.' It distinguishes from siblings by specifying what this tool configures (WHO the agent is and HOW it looks) versus alternatives like upsert_stage (WHAT the agent does) and update_enabled_tools (which tools the agent can call).

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 versus alternatives: 'Use this to configure WHO the agent is and HOW it looks. For defining WHAT the agent does in each conversation flow, use upsert_stage. For changing which tools the agent can call, use update_enabled_tools.' It also specifies prerequisites: 'Requires role: owner, admin, or developer.'

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