add_mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the raw action and destination, omitting critical behaviors such as the safety refusals for footgun flags (env, args, shell metacharacters) that are evident in the schema. It also doesn't mention whether existing configurations are overwritten, permission requirements, or failure modes.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the simple action it describes, though it omits important details that affect usability.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters, nested objects, safety refusals, and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error handling, or the footgun override mechanism that an agent must understand to call the tool correctly.

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 100%, so all 10 parameters are already documented with meaningful descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, aligning with the baseline 3 for high 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 (add) and resource (new MCP server) with a specific destination (user configuration). While it distinguishes itself from 'remove_mcp' and 'list_all_mcps', it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'configure_mcp' (which might modify existing servers), though 'new' implies that distinction.

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 for creating new servers, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over 'configure_mcp' or provide exclusions/prerequisites. No alternative tools are mentioned, leaving usage context implicit rather than explicit.

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