Write MCP config

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It meaningfully discloses that a timestamped backup of the previous file is created before writing, which is valuable behavioral context for a mutating disk operation. It does not detail the exact target path or overwrite semantics, but the backup behavior is a significant transparency improvement.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and then adding the key backup side effect. Every word contributes meaningful information with no repetition or 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?

For a write/config tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is functional but leaves gaps: it does not specify where the config is stored, how overwrites interact with the backup, whether validation occurs, or whether a restart/refresh is needed after writing. These details would materially affect correct invocation, though the core write-plus-backup behavior is covered.

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 0% and the description provides no explanation of the 'config' parameter or its nested structure. The schema itself reveals property names and requirements, but the description does nothing to clarify the intended meaning, format, or relationship to mcpServers, leaving the parameter semantics under-explained.

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 a specific action, 'Persist an MCP config to disk', identifying the resource and operation. It is distinguishable from read-mcp-config and open-mcp-config-manager by the write/persist framing, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself.

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: use this when you need to save an MCP configuration to disk. It provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives such as read-mcp-config or open-mcp-config-manager, leaving selection partially to inference.

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