wrap_mcp_stdio

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect on ~/.claude.json, the mechanism (Node wrapper that respawns when killed), and the restart prerequisite. It does not mention potential overwriting of existing config values or failure modes, but the disclosed behaviors are accurate and useful.

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 exactly two sentences: the first front-loads the purpose, the second explains the mechanism and requirement. Every clause adds value, with no fluff or repetition. Efficient and well-structured.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, how it works, and the required restart. It could add caveats about config overwrites or error conditions, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the provided fact that it modifies ~/.claude.json.

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% (mcp_name is documented as 'The name of the MCP server to wrap'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this – it doesn't explain how the name maps to config entries or any constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully describes the parameter.

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 ('wrap') and the resource ('stdio MCP server'), and explains the purpose ('so it can be restarted reliably'). It differentiates from the sibling wrap_codex_mcp_stdio by explicitly targeting stdio servers, and implicitly contrasts with unwrap_mcp_stdio. The agent can tell exactly what this tool accomplishes.

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 when to use it (when restart reliability is needed) and includes a key operational requirement ('Requires restarting Claude CLI to take effect'). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., unwrap_mcp_stdio, restart_mcp_process) or state when not to use it, which would strengthen guidance but is not essential given the clear purpose.

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