omni_config

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key side effect: 'host/port/token changes affect every subsequent bridge call in this session', which is genuinely useful. However, it does not mention whether updates are validated, require any preconditions, or are reversible per call, so some behavioral context remains implicit.

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?

Two sentences carry all essential information: purpose first, then the persistent-effect warning, then practical use cases. There is no filler or repetition; every clause earns its place.

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 config tool with multiple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, the session-scoped impact, and the main invocation scenarios. The schema already documents individual parameters, so the description does not need to enumerate them; it supplies the missing operational context.

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 meaning beyond the schema by explaining that host/port configure a different device and that token typically comes from omni_pair. This links parameters to concrete workflow context rather than just restating their types.

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 opens with 'View or update the live MCP connection config', a concrete verb+resource pair that states exactly what the tool does. It also distinguishes the tool by specifying that host/port/token changes affect subsequent bridge calls, which sets it apart from sibling tools like omni_ping or omni_state. No ambiguity remains.

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 explicit, actionable use cases: 'point at a different device' for host/port and 'set a token obtained by omni_pair' for token. It clearly implies when to call this tool, though it does not name excluded scenarios or direct alternatives beyond omni_pair as a token source.

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