Structurally check a config draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds concrete validation behaviors (per-entry problem reporting, transport-choice preview) that go somewhat beyond annotations, but it does not disclose whether the tool errors on invalid input or how thoroughly it validates beyond structure.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the pre-save validation purpose before listing problem categories. The ellipsis suggests the description may be truncated or incomplete, which slightly hurts structure.

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 structurally simple (one string parameter, output schema present), annotations cover the safety profile, and the description explains what gets checked and how problems are reported. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 single config parameter is already fully documented. The description implies the input is a draft config being checked, which aligns with the schema but adds no syntax or format details beyond it.

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?

States a specific verb (checks) and resource (a proposed mcptoon server configuration) with clear scope (before saving). Distinguishes from siblings like mcptoon_servers (which presumably lists existing servers) by making the draft-validation purpose unmistakable.

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?

Implies when to use it: 'before you save it' gives clear timing context for validating a draft. It doesn't name a specific alternative or say what to do if problems are found, but the pre-save context is strong enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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