account_write_config

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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it backs up before writing, never clobbers a malformed file, and never inlines secrets. These are safety-relevant traits an agent could not infer from the annotation block alone.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the default-vs-write decision, with the safety caveats last. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing both return paths (snippet/command vs in-place write) and the non-clobber guarantee. Minor gaps remain around non-file-based clients and what 'detected' means, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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, but the description adds behavioral meaning to write:true (in-place write with backup) and to the default mode (snippet only) that goes slightly beyond the terse 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 a concrete verb and resource — register this server by producing MCP client config — and names the exact clients (Claude Code / Claude Desktop / Cursor). It cleanly disambiguates from siblings like account_add and account_list, which manage credentials rather than client config files.

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?

It explicitly frames the two modes: default returns the snippet/command, and write:true writes detected file-based configs in place. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name a sibling alternative, so it stops short of a full when/when-not rubric.

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