fb_create_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the default write target (~/.firebird-mcp.json) and that projects/tags can be associated, but says nothing about overwriting existing entries, required permissions, credentials handling, or reversibility of a global-catalog write.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler, and the core action plus default destination are front-loaded. It is efficient, though it errs on the side of being too sparse for an 11-parameter tool.

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 config-writing tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. The agent lacks any explanation of most parameters and of the side effects of writing to a global config file.

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 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only elaborates on projects (with an example) and tags, leaving host, port, user, alias, charset, filepath, password, and description entirely unexplained in either place.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb+resource: creates and saves a new configuration file, naming the default target (~/.firebird-mcp.json). However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling fb_configure_database, which plausibly also touches configuration, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.

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 when-to-use guidance or prerequisites are given. It never explains when to create a config versus calling fb_configure_database or fb_reload_config, so the agent must infer intent from the name alone.

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