Kontomanager MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states this is a 'high-level action' that modifies a SIM setting, implying mutation behavior, but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential costs/impacts of enabling roaming, or what the response looks like. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: first states the core action, second provides implementation context. No wasted words, well-structured, and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action but misses crucial context: error conditions, side effects, authentication requirements, response format, and differentiation from similar tools. The description doesn't provide enough information for safe, effective use.

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 mentions the tool toggles roaming based on an 'enabled' parameter, which aligns with the single boolean parameter in the schema. However, it doesn't explain what true/false values mean specifically (e.g., true=enable roaming, false=disable), nor does it provide format or constraint details. The description adds basic meaning but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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's purpose as enabling or disabling international roaming, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on roaming settings rather than billing, usage, or other SIM settings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'set_sim_setting' which might handle similar functionality.

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 context by mentioning it modifies the 'roaming_barred' SIM setting, suggesting it should be used for roaming control. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'set_sim_setting' or any prerequisites/warnings about roaming changes.

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