Setup Permissions

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

The description describes triggering permission prompts, which implies a user-facing interactive action. However, annotations set readOnlyHint=true, which contradicts this behavioral description. This is a clear contradiction, reducing transparency. The description does not disclose the stateful or interactive nature beyond what contradicts the 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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is minimally adequate. However, the annotation contradiction and lack of safety or repeat-call guidance leave gaps. The tool's interactive nature is not fully disclosed.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. The description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline score for 0 parameters is 4.

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 the action ('Trigger macOS permission prompts') and specifies the scope ('all Apple apps used by AirMCP'). It distinguishes this setup tool from the many sibling tools focused on data management or system control.

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 provides context ('for all Apple apps used by AirMCP') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it offer exclusions or prerequisites. The agent can infer that this is a one-time setup step, but guidance is implicit.

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