mc_accounts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so: it guarantees no password/token is ever returned, explains that refresh performs a real auth-server token exchange for skin sites, and warns that failures carry a needUserAction flag requiring the user to run a terminal command. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loads the resource and verb set, then uses a bulleted action table with zero filler; the warning line is placed last because it only matters after a call fails. Slightly text-heavy with bold markers, but each line adds information rather than repeating the schema.

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 3-parameter, multi-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies per-action return contents (innerID, game name, UUID, type, server, credential presence), session scope of the 'use' selection, and error semantics. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly or interpret common failures 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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by binding each parameter to the action it belongs to (query only for search, innerID for use, optional innerID for refresh with documented defaulting behavior). That action-parameter coupling is the kind of semantics the flat schema does not express.

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 resource (MC accounts) and four discrete verbs (list/search/use/refresh), then enumerates exactly what each action returns or does. The 'use' action explicitly hands off to mc_connect, so an agent can place this tool relative to its siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Every action is paired with its trigger and its required argument (search→query, use→innerID, refresh→optional innerID falling back to the selected/default account), and list is declared the default. The failure path even points to the exact follow-up command for the user, leaving no routing ambiguity.

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