add_mcp_tool

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

With no annotations, the description is solely responsible for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without revealing side effects, idempotency, validation, return value, or error behavior, so the agent remains blind to important operational traits.

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 front-loads the action and resource. It wastes no words, but it does sacrifice depth for brevity.

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?

The tool involves a nested object with several fields and no output schema, yet the description provides no context about the required configuration structure or behavior. It is too sparse to fully support correct use.

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 covers only 50% of parameters (projectId is described, but the 'tool' object has no description). The description's phrase 'MCP tool configuration' adds little meaning beyond the schema, and it does not compensate for the undocumented nested object structure.

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 uses the clear action verb 'Add' and identifies the resource ('an MCP tool configuration') and destination ('to the project'). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'update_mcp_tool' through the add/update contrast, although it does not explicitly call out 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_mcp_tool or other configuration tools. It lacks any mention of scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage context.

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