Kontomanager 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 states this is an update operation (implying mutation), but doesn't mention permissions required, whether changes are immediate or require confirmation, error conditions, or what happens to existing settings. The description provides some parameter constraints but lacks broader behavioral context about the update operation itself.

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 with a clear opening statement followed by bullet points for each parameter. Each bullet adds value by explaining enum codes and constraints. There's minimal waste, though the bullet format could be slightly more polished. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose stated first.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well on parameter semantics but lacks broader context. It explains what each parameter means but doesn't cover the update operation's behavior, success/failure responses, or relationship to sibling tools. Given the complexity of updating call forwarding rules, more operational context would be helpful despite the good parameter coverage.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It provides crucial semantic explanations for all enum values: 'alle' (all calls), 'nann' (no answer), 'wtel' (when busy), 'nerr' (not reachable) for condition; 'd' (deactivated), 'b' (voicemail/box), 'a' (another number) for target. It also explains dependencies (target_number required if target is 'a'), format requirements (international format), and clarifies delay_seconds applies only to 'nann' condition.

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 verb 'Updates' and resource 'a specific call forwarding rule', making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_call_forwarding_settings', but the update vs. get distinction is implied. The description is specific about what gets updated (call forwarding rules with particular parameters).

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it's implied this is for updating call forwarding rules (versus 'get_call_forwarding_settings' for reading them), there's no explicit comparison or context about prerequisites, dependencies, or when-not-to-use scenarios. The description assumes the user already knows they need to update a forwarding rule.

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