GitMCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a 'Set' operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this persists tokens across sessions, requires specific permissions, overwrites existing tokens, or has side effects (e.g., testing the token). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of an authentication mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what happens after setting the token (e.g., success response, error handling, or how it integrates with other tools like 'auth_test_connection'), leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full context.

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 description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('provider' and 'token'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain provider options like 'gitea' or 'github' in more detail), so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 ('Set') and resource ('authentication token for a provider'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'auth_test_connection' or other auth-related tools, which could have overlapping purposes in authentication workflows.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'auth_test_connection' or 'config_set' (which might handle similar settings). It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., whether a provider must be configured first) or exclusions, leaving usage unclear.

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