mcp_sensor_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 a good job: it explains that a sensor runs a script, that the script must live in the agent's scripts/ folder with no paths, that arguments must be letters/digits only, how execution differs on Raspberry Pi versus Pico/ESP32, and that remove=true deletes the sensor. It does not cover permissions, reconfigure semantics, or response behavior, but the core mutation behavior is disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded, defining the sensor concept before explaining script constraints and removal behavior. Every sentence adds operational detail without filler.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies most of what an agent needs to invoke this configuration tool correctly, especially for the script and remove parameters. It is slightly incomplete regarding permissions, what happens when reconfiguring an existing sensor, and what a successful call returns.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains script and remove semantics, including format and platform-specific execution, but it does not explain the agent or name parameters beyond what their names imply, leaving half of the parameters without added meaning.

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 states a specific verb and resource: configuring a named sensor on an agent, where the sensor runs a script whose output is the reading. It is clearly distinct from mcp_sensor_read, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast configuration with reading.

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 gives useful usage context, including how to delete a sensor with remove=true and how the script field must be formed. However, it does not say when to choose this tool over siblings such as mcp_sensor_read or mcp_config_write, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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