Register Gamealia in coding agents

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

Goes well beyond the supplied annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by disclosing that dry run is the default, that every changed file is backed up first, that unparsable files are left alone, that merges are idempotent, and that `gamealia agents uninstall` reverts the whole thing. It also names the exact files and directories touched per scope, which is the kind of detail annotations cannot convey.

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 key framing — one-time setup, dry run by default, returns snippets — is front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the remaining parenthetical lists earn most of their space by naming concrete config paths. It is dense and slightly over-long, with the agent-name enumeration and file lists bordering on clutter.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the return value (planned file changes plus copy-paste snippets like `claude mcp add`, Codex TOML, and install links). It also covers safety (backups, unparsable files untouched), reversibility, and per-scope effects, which is everything an agent needs before invoking a destructive write tool with zero required parameters.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by spelling out the practical consequences of scope ('project writes .mcp.json, .claude/skills, .cursor/ ...; global edits ~/.claude.json, ~/.codex/config.toml, Claude Desktop') and by pairing write:true with 'applies'. That said, much of the scope and write semantics is already stated in the schema property descriptions, so it is reinforcement rather than entirely new meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('registers this MCP server and installs the Gamealia skills/rules in coding agents') plus an explicit scope exclusion ('One-time setup, not part of publishing'). This clearly separates it from the publishing siblings and from gamealia_integrate_sdk, which targets SDK code rather than agent configs.

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?

Frames the situation ('One-time setup, not part of publishing') and explains the dry-run-by-default workflow with write:true as the apply switch. It does not explicitly name a sibling to use instead, such as gamealia_integrate_sdk for SDK work, so a small inference is left to the agent.

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