llmconveyors-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully documents the authorization requirement (settings:write scope), the post-removal system behavior (reverts to platform credits), and suggests a safe workflow pattern. Could be strengthened by describing idempotency or error cases (e.g., removing non-existent key).

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: action statement, consequence, authorization prerequisite, and sibling tool recommendation. Front-loaded with the operation type and logically ordered for quick comprehension.

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?

Excellent coverage for a single-parameter deletion tool. Explains side effects, auth requirements, and prerequisites. Lacks explicit return value description or error handling documentation, though without an output schema this is acceptable.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single 'provider' parameter. The description implicitly references this parameter ('for a provider') but adds no syntax or semantic details beyond the schema's own documentation. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema completeness.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Remove' with exact resource 'BYO API key' and scope 'for a provider'. It distinguishes from siblings by contrasting removal with configuration (byo-key-set) and checking (byo-key-get), and clarifies the consequence of removal (reverting to platform credits).

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?

Explicitly states prerequisite scope 'settings:write' and recommends specific workflow: 'Use byo-key-get to check which providers have keys configured before removing.' Also clarifies the behavioral consequence ('agent runs will use platform credits instead') which guides when to use this tool.

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