config

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint but the description lists actions that may not all be idempotent (e.g., setup_reset). No additional behavioral context such as side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits is provided. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 very concise (two sentences), but it externalizes necessary information to another tool ('Use help tool for full docs'), which degrades structure. It is not verbose, but it is incomplete.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, 9 actions, output schema exists), the description is severely lacking. It provides no detail about action semantics, parameter usage, or when to set vs. status. The referral to help tool indicates incompleteness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but fails to explain any of the four optional parameters (key, value, remote_type, force). The action list gives context but no parameter details. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 'Server config and management' and lists distinct actions, making the purpose evident. It differentiates from sibling 'config__open_relay' as a general config tool versus a specific relay config.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only suggests using the help tool for full docs, shifting the burden away from the description. Siblings like 'search' or 'extract' are not compared, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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