configure_clients

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

With no annotations provided, the description holds full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only implies a write operation ('adds to config') without specifying side effects (e.g., overwriting existing config, permission requirements, restart needs, or impact on clients). Critically missing for a tool that modifies system configuration.

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?

Single sentence front-loading the purpose. No wasted words. Lists example clients efficiently. Ideal conciseness.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too brief. It fails to explain what 'Local MCP' means, which config files are modified, whether clients need restart, or if the operation is reversible. A more complete description would improve usability for an agent.

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 no parameters (schema coverage 100%). The description adds value by explaining what the tool does, which compensates for the lack of parameter information. According to guidelines, baseline is 4 for 0 parameters when description adds context, which it does.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Adds Local MCP to the config') and target ('installed MCP-capable AI clients on this Mac'). It lists examples (Claude Desktop, Claude Code) which helps. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'update_local_mcp', which might have similar purpose. Slight ambiguity prevents a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_local_mcp' or other configuration tools. The description only states what it does without providing context on prerequisites, frequency, or exclusions. An agent would lack decision support for selecting this tool.

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