set_mcp_debug

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that enabling shows a header and disabling clears stats, but does not mention persistence, session scope, performance impact, or required permissions. The description is decent but lacks detail on behavioral boundaries.

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 concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and provides an illustrative example of the output header. Every sentence adds value without 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?

The tool is simple (one boolean parameter) and the description explains its behavior adequately. It does not mention whether the setting persists across sessions, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. Minor gap: no mention of scope or lifecycle.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the single boolean parameter, but the tool description explicitly explains that 'enabled=True enables, False disables and clears stats', adding critical semantic meaning beyond the schema's default value.

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 tool enables or disables token debug estimation on MCP responses, specifying the effect when enabled (shows a token debug header) and disabled (clears accumulated stats). It uses a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_mcp_token_stats' which gets stats rather than setting debug mode.

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 for toggling token debug output but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_mcp_token_stats'. No when-not or contextual exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose.

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