attest-mcp-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. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: that this is a state-changing operation ('This changes system state'), that it consumes resources ('consumes the pending approval'), and what it returns ('returns the delegated token that should be used for the gated step'). It doesn't mention error conditions or rate limits, but covers the essential mutation behavior well.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the action, providing usage guidelines, and describing behavioral consequences. There's no wasted text, and the most critical information (the tool's purpose) is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 state-changing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering the essential context: purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral impact, and return value guidance. It doesn't describe the exact format of the returned token or error scenarios, but given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata, it provides substantial contextual completeness.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description doesn't add any additional parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions the parameters contextually ('their OIDC identity token' references id_token), but doesn't provide new semantic details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the specific action ('Approve a pending approval challenge and mint the HITL-authorized child credential'), identifies the resource ('pending approval challenge'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by explicitly naming an alternative ('for status checks use get_approval instead'). This provides a complete and differentiated purpose statement.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('only when a human approver has already authenticated and you have their OIDC identity token') and when not to use it ('for status checks use get_approval instead'). It clearly names an alternative tool and specifies prerequisites, making usage context unambiguous.

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