passkey_wrap_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that it updates config files, returns lists of updated/skipped configs and errors, and notes the default behavior of detecting all configs. This adds transparency, though it doesn't elaborate on side effects like backup or reversibility.

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 compact, starting with a one-sentence summary, then prerequisites, args, and returns. Every section adds useful information with no filler.

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?

The tool has just 2 simple parameters and no output schema, and the description provides a clear return structure and prerequisite. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it, though it assumes some domain knowledge about passkey wrappers.

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 has zero descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains server_name must match passkey entry and config_paths defaults to all detected configs, adding meaning beyond type/name. It doesn't specify path formats but adequately clarifies both parameters.

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 'Update MCP config files to use passkey wrapper for a server,' which is a specific verb+resource and clearly distinguishes from siblings like passkey_list or passkey_status. It clarifies the tool's unique purpose.

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 states the prerequisite that the entry must exist in passkey keychain, giving context on when to use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of full 5.

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