setup_kion_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool attempts to collect URL and auth details, and describes two potential outcomes (success with auto-configuration vs. manual instructions). It doesn't mention side effects, but as a setup tool, this is acceptable.

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 front-loaded with 'REQUIRED SETUP' and uses a structured list for post-call actions. While somewhat verbose, every sentence adds value, and the structure aids readability.

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 tool has an output schema and a sibling tool, the description covers the setup process and follow-up steps. It could mention the output schema more explicitly, but the return messages are described adequately.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description naturally adds no parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate as no missing information.

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 it is a required setup tool for the Kion MCP Server, specifying that it collects instance URL and authentication details. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'check_config_status' by outlining the two possible outcomes, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this tool to begin setup.' It provides step-by-step post-call instructions, including when to use the sibling tool if manual configuration is needed. This fully informs the agent on correct usage.

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