Configure Polvenn

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

Annotations already express idempotency and non-destructiveness. The description adds that only supplied fields are modified and that the returned config masks keys, providing useful behavioral context (partial updates, security-sensitive output) beyond the structured metadata.

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 a compact two-part structure: a one-sentence action summary followed by a scannable bullet list of arguments and a return note. Every element earns its place with no redundant wording.

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?

Covers purpose, parameters, return value, and the partial-update nuance; the masked-keys note is an important extra for an agent's trust evaluation. Given no output schema or nested objects, this is sufficiently complete for an AI to invoke correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description enriches semantics by explaining 'only provided values are updated' and adds source hints (e.g., vinmonopoletApiKey from api.vinmonopolet.no), going beyond the schema's simple field names and descriptions.

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 states 'Set the release feed URL, API key, home store, and location for the Polvenn MCP server' with a clear verb and target resource. This clearly distinguishes polvenn_configure from sibling tools like polvenn_validate_config or polvenn_find_nearby_stores.

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 notes 'Args (all optional — only provided values are updated)', giving clear context for when to use it (config updates) and the partial-update behavior. It does not explicitly contrast against alternatives, but the configuration purpose is evident, so it meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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