client_manage

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that files are written/removed and lists status values including 'configured_mismatch' and 'error'. However, it does not detail side effects like overwriting existing configurations, file permissions needed, or idempotency, leaving some gaps.

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 fairly concise with a leading summary and bullet-pointed operations. However, the parameter mismatch and lack of mention for 'params' and 'session_id' add slight unnecessary complexity.

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 tool has multiple operations and an output schema (not shown). The description covers the basic flow but lacks details on error handling, return values beyond status, and edge cases like invalid client ids. It is adequate but not fully complete for a tool modifying config files.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description covers the 'op' parameter by listing enum values and their effects, but it misleadingly describes configure and remove as taking a 'client' parameter while the schema shows 'params' as an arbitrary object. The 'session_id' parameter is not mentioned. This confusion harms parameter understanding.

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 tool configures AI clients to use the MCP server, listing supported clients and three operations. This is distinct from all sibling tools which focus on Godot editor functionality, making selection 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 explains how to use each operation: call status() to list clients, then configure(client) or remove(client) with a client id. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention prerequisites, but the clear operation steps provide adequate guidance.

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