whodb_mcp_setup

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description explains per-action behavior: inspect reads settings/schema/choices, preview validates without saving, apply persists only a token-bound user-approved preview, verify checks active targets. It also adds operational behavior (restart after changes) and a security constraint (never send credentials).

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 dense but efficiently front-loads the main purpose before detailing each action. Semicolon-separated action clauses are compact, though the single paragraph packs multiple concepts together rather than using clearer structure.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value documentation is not needed, and the annotations cover the tool's safety profile. The description supplies the workflow, action semantics, approval/token requirements, restart need, and security constraint, making it complete for correct invocation.

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%, and the schema already defines action, patch, approved, and confirmation_token in detail. The description reinforces the action flow and approval/token usage but adds little syntactic or semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 specifies a setup and guidance resource ('self-contained WhoDB MCP guidance and setup') and enumerates the four actions, giving a clear verb+resource. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many whodb_platform_* siblings by name, but the 'start here' framing and action breakdown make the purpose identifiable.

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?

It provides clear workflow guidance: begin with inspect, preview before apply, apply only after user approval, restart after changes, and never send credentials. It does not name alternative tools or explicit exclusions beyond 'without skills or shell access', but the sequencing and guardrails substantially reduce misuse risk.

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