set_remote

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose an important security behavior—'The routing UUID in the URL is the sole bearer credential for the relay session'—and implies a network connection. However, it does not explain side effects like overwriting an existing target, persistence, or failure behavior, leaving a notable transparency gap for a state-changing tool.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a practical usage condition and a security note. Every clause earns its place, with no wasted words or redundancy.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers purpose, when to invoke, and a crucial credential warning, which is largely sufficient for the tool's complexity. It stops short of describing the result or how to verify success, but that is a minor omission for such a focused utility.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing that the URL contains a credential-bearing routing UUID, which is security-relevant semantic context beyond the schema's type and example. This extra insight justifies a 4.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Set the remote relay target for this MCP server.' It clearly states what the tool does and even provides a triggering condition, making the purpose unambiguous. Though there are no sibling tools to distinguish from, the wording is specific enough to earn full marks.

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 guidance: 'If browser tools are missing, call set_remote first to connect to a Vibe relay.' This is a clear when-to-use instruction. The schema reinforces it with 'Call set_remote first when browser tools are unavailable,' providing both context and sequence without needing alternatives.

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