orquestra_create_mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one important side effect beyond the name: the server is auto-deployed to every harness. However it says nothing about auth/permissions, reversibility, idempotency, or what happens if mcp_id already exists, which are significant gaps for a create+deploy mutation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste, and the primary action (register) leads while the secondary effect (deploy) follows. It is arguably too terse for a 7-parameter mutation tool, but structurally it is clean.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be described, but the definition is otherwise thin: no annotation coverage, zero parameter documentation, and only a one-line summary for a tool that both creates and fans out a deployment. An agent lacks enough to invoke it confidently.

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% across 7 parameters (4 required), and the description adds no meaning for any of them. Terms like 'catalog' and 'harness' are not tied to fields such as mcp_id, command, env, args, or global_enabled, leaving the agent to infer everything from bare names.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: registering a new MCP server, and adds a second concrete action (deploy to every harness). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list/toggle/delete operations without naming them explicitly.

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 implies this is the creation path but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing advice relative to siblings like orquestra_toggle_mcp or orquestra_delete_mcp. The only implied signal is that creation precedes deployment.

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