passkey_setup_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states intent. It does not disclose whether the tool writes files, modifies configuration, requires authentication, is idempotent, or what 'setup' actually changes in the project. The 'Pro feature' hint is the only behavioral context, which is insufficient.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. It contains no fluff or repetitive wording. While it is brief, the structure is efficient for the limited information it conveys.

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?

This is a setup/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, yet the description provides only a purpose statement. An agent cannot infer what side effects will occur, whether Pro validation is already configured, what files are touched, or what success looks like. The description is not adequate for safe and correct invocation.

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 schema covers only the 'directory' parameter with a minimal 'Project directory' description, and api_key has no description at all. The tool description does not clarify what api_key is for, where to find it, or how directory is used in the setup. With 50% schema coverage and zero compensation from the description, parameter semantics are severely lacking.

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 identifies the verb ('Set up') and resource ('passkey server-side validation'), so an agent can understand the tool's core purpose. It also distinguishes it from sibling tools like passkey_generate_registration and passkey_generate_auth by focusing on server-side validation setup. The 'Pro feature' note adds useful scope context.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, required Pro entitlement steps, or when a developer would prefer this over passkey_generate_registration or passkey_generate_auth. Usage context must be inferred entirely from the name and sibling list.

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