connect

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions that existing configs of other servers are not modified, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what exactly gets changed on the target system.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every word adds value. It is appropriately concise.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It covers the core purpose but provides no context on return values, required inputs, or how the tool behaves in different scenarios, leaving many operational details unclear.

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 only 40%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not: it only lists agent types, which are already in the schema's 'agent' parameter description. No additional meaning is added for target, config_path, agentic_path, or create_if_missing.

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 tool configures agentic-ecos as an MCP server for one or more agents, listing specific agent types. This distinguishes it from siblings like connect_status, which presumably checks status rather than performing configuration.

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 implies usage: use this to set up MCP server for agents. The note 'No modifica configs existentes de otros servers' provides a safety reassurance, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to prefer.

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