install

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the tool's behavior well: generates configuration rather than directly writing files, returns paths and JSON entries, and automatically runs discovery when a domain is provided. Missing details like conflict handling or permission requirements, but otherwise transparent.

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?

Four sentences, each with distinct content: purpose, return value, required next steps, and parameter modes. Efficient and front-loaded, with no redundant or filler wording.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, output format, workflow, and parameter selection. It would benefit from explicit error handling or conflict behavior, but the core context is complete for an agent to use it 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 coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by clarifying relationships: url and domain are alternatives (domain triggers discovery), and name is auto-derived if omitted—information beyond individual schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'Generate client configuration to permanently register a discovered MCP server.' It clearly states what the tool does and returns (config file paths and JSON entries) for multiple client applications, distinguishing it from siblings like discover and browse.

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?

Provides clear usage context: accepts a server URL directly or a domain (runs discovery first), and explains the follow-up workflow (read config file, merge entry, write back). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'when not to use,' though the distinction from discover is implied.

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