mc_admin_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that mutations take effect immediately, are persisted to `~/.mcp-mc-agent/config.json`, and which keys are silent no-ops. It omits whether `reset` is reversible or requires confirmation, which matters for a tool that can wipe all configuration.

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?

Purpose and the main misuse warning are front-loaded, and the bulleted action list scans quickly. The two large legacy-key warnings consume a lot of space before the agent learns what the tool actually writes, and could be compressed without losing the anti-footgun value.

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 config tool with no output schema, it covers what is read or written, where it persists, when it takes effect, and which keys are dead. It leaves the shape of `get`/`list` responses and the failure mode of an unknown `path` unspecified, which the agent must discover by calling.

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 well beyond it: it enumerates the accepted `path` values, documents value types per key (`commandWhitelist` array with exact / regex / "*" matching semantics, `memoryPerSession` boolean with its directory layout), and explains what each `action` does to `path`/`value`.

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 verb pair (read/write) and a clearly scoped resource (mcp-mc-agent's global config) and enumerates the five actions it supports. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `mc_config`, which an agent could easily confuse with this admin variant.

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?

Each action is paired with the condition that selects it (get defaults, set needs path+value, unset reverts to default, reset restores all, list shows defaults vs effective). It also explicitly warns that `mcModePresets`/`mcPlusPresets`/`expressEnabled` are DSH leftovers with no effect, effectively saying 'do not bother using these'. It stops short of saying when to pick this tool over `mc_config`.

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