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 the tool's behavior: it creates a pending approval request (implying a write operation), requires specific prerequisites ('valid parent token'), and returns a challenge object. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like rate limits or error conditions, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and usage context, the second covers prerequisites and return value with references to sibling tools. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with 5 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good context: purpose, usage timing, prerequisites, and return object type. However, it doesn't detail the challenge object structure or error handling, which could be helpful given the complexity. The description is mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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 all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only implying that 'parent_token' must be valid and 'requested_scope' relates to 'extra scope' approval. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Create a pending approval request') and resource ('for a high-risk delegation'), distinguishing it from siblings like grant_approval or deny_approval. It explicitly mentions the context ('after issuing or delegating a credential when a human must approve extra scope'), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct.

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 ('after issuing or delegating a credential when a human must approve extra scope before work continues') and mentions alternatives for later steps ('can later be inspected with get_approval or resolved with grant_approval or deny_approval'). This clearly differentiates it from other tools in the workflow.

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