assign_mcp_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation risk upfront ('MUTATES'), requires confirmation, and states the privilege needed. The example clarifies tools_json structure. It could further explain whether tools are appended or replaced, but the core behavioral aspects are transparent.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: front-loaded action, a concrete example, and critical warnings. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: action, input format, mutation risk, and privilege requirement. It lacks details on return values or impact on existing tools, but given no output schema, it is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a concrete JSON array example for tools_json, explaining its structure beyond the bare schema. However, the handle parameter is left undocumented, leaving the user to infer its meaning from sibling tools.

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 uses the specific verb 'Attach' with the resource 'recipe-function/genie tools to an AI Hub MCP server', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_mcp_server_tools or assign_mcp_user_groups. The action and target are unambiguous.

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 explicitly warns 'MUTATES a live MCP server's tool surface — confirm first' and states 'Needs the MCP privilege', providing clear context for when to use and necessary preconditions. However, it does not name alternative read-only tools like list_mcp_server_tools for inspection, which would further clarify when to use this vs alternatives.

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