MCP Gateway

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that routing profiles restrict tool/backend availability, which is helpful, but lacks details on permissions needed, whether changes are session-specific or persistent, error conditions, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and resource, and the second explains the purpose of routing profiles. It is front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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 (mutates session state), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details like effects, permissions, or response format. However, it does provide enough to understand the core function.

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 the 'profile' parameter with examples. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as valid profile names or constraints, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('Switch') and resource ('active routing profile for this session'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on profile activation rather than listing, getting, or other operations. It explains what a routing profile does, adding useful context.

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 when needing to change tool/backend availability, but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'gateway_get_profile' or 'gateway_list_profiles'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving some ambiguity.

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