Configure AdvocateHub tenant credentials

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by explaining the precondition ('Required before other tools') and the validation behavior via the 'validate' parameter. It does not disclose all side effects (e.g., whether credentials are persisted), but it goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then prerequisites, then parameter-mode rules. No fluff; every sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 params, no output schema), the description covers the main modes, a prerequisite, and validation behavior. It does not describe return values, but that is less critical for a setup tool. The schema already documents all parameters, so the description is appropriately complementary.

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 baseline is 3. The description elevates this by explaining the semantic relationships between parameters: 'Org-token tools need api_token + org_id; SSO-only sessions need only hub_url (org id is derived from the JWT after sso_login).' This is meaningful guidance not present in the schema.

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's verb and resource: 'Supplies org-wide API credentials (api_token + org_id) and/or hub_url for SSO.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing itself as a prerequisite setup tool, distinct from listing, auditing, and identity-context tools.

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 when to use the tool: 'Required before other tools when the server started unconfigured.' It also provides mode-specific guidance (org-token vs. SSO-only). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternative tools, falling short of the '5' bar for explicit exclusions/alternatives.

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