MCP Gateway

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 effectively describes the core action (re-enabling routing) and an important side effect (resetting error budget), but doesn't mention potential consequences, permissions required, rate limits, or what happens if the server isn't actually disabled. It provides basic behavioral context but lacks completeness for a mutation operation.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each add distinct value: the first states the primary action, the second reveals important behavioral context. There's zero wasted language, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose immediately clear.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does but lacks details about what happens after invocation (success/failure indicators, return values, side effects beyond error budget reset). Given the complexity of server management operations, more context about dependencies, permissions, or system state requirements would be helpful.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the single parameter thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but since there's only one parameter and the schema coverage is complete, this represents minimal information loss. The baseline for high schema coverage would be 3, but the single parameter case with complete documentation justifies a slightly higher score.

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 ('re-enable routing') on a specific resource ('previously disabled backend server'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning the unique 'reset error budget' functionality. It uses precise verbs and identifies the target resource without ambiguity.

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 implies usage context ('previously disabled backend server') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'gateway_kill_server' or 'gateway_reload_config'. No guidance is provided about prerequisites, dependencies, or exclusions for using this tool.

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