client_manage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that the tool 'Writes / removes client config files' and details each op's effect, including the destructive nature of 'remove'. It also hints at error states via the 'error' status in status(). It does not mention permissions or backup behavior, but the core side effects 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?

The description is well-structured with a concise intro, a bulleted Ops list, and a clear canonical call shape. Every sentence adds meaningful information, with no redundancy or filler. The use of code formatting and list structure makes it easy to scan.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers the essential behavior: supported clients, ops, call shape, and compatibility. An output schema exists, so the lack of return-value details is not a gap. The description is sufficient for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It effectively explains the 'op' enum via the Ops list, describes the 'params' object shape (including that 'client' is an id from status()), and clarifies the flat-parameters compatibility alias and top-level 'session_id'. This is strong parameter semantics despite no schema 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 a specific verb ('Configure') and resource ('AI clients... Godot AI MCP server'), and enumerates supported clients. The 'Ops' section further clarifies the distinct actions (status, configure, remove), making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like editor_manage or scene_manage.

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 clearly indicates that the tool is for managing client config files and provides usage context for each op (status, configure, remove). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is so specific that usage intent is unambiguous. The canonical call shape and compatibility alias are also helpful guidance.

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