Set Webhound MCP Defaults

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds context: 'The MCP always uses Hound' and 'omitted fields keep their saved values' (partial update). It does not elaborate on what makes this destructive (e.g., overwriting shared defaults) or any side effects, making the added value moderate.

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, zero waste. First sentence states core functionality and partial-update behavior; second adds a crucial usage constraint. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded.

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 3 optional parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description covers main purpose and a key exclusion. However, it omits what happens when no parameters are provided and does not clarify the destructive nature hinted by annotations. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, and the description only mentions the fields ('default budget/product/free-run') without explaining allowed values or constraints. The partial-update behavior is implied but not detailed per parameter. This insufficiently compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 states 'Update only the provided default budget/product/free-run fields for future MCP runs; omitted fields keep their saved values.' This clearly identifies the action (update defaults), the resource (future MCP runs), and distinguishes from siblings like webhound_set_budget or webhound_get_defaults by specifying partial updates and the target.

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 explicitly says 'Do not use this for private workspace-derived rules; save those locally in the agent workspace,' which gives a clear when-not-to-use condition. However, it does not name alternative tools for setting workspace-derived rules, so it stops short of a full 5.

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