config

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

The description discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: setup_reset clears credentials, setup_start requires browser interaction (implied), cache_clear is a no-op, and set returns info due to lack of mutable settings. Annotations (readOnlyHint: false) align with mutability, so no contradiction.

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 well-structured with bullet points for actions and a clear opening sentence. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. No redundant or wasted words.

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 description covers all actions, their effects, and side effects (e.g., no-ops, setup steps). Return values are not described (no output schema), but the description explains what each action does sufficiently for usage.

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 input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds context for the force parameter (setup_start), but does not significantly expand on key and value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states the tool manages server configuration and credential state, and lists specific actions like status, setup_start, setup_reset, etc. It distinguishes from the sibling config__open_relay by mentioning that setup_start triggers relay setup, implying a separate tool for the relay aspect.

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?

Usage guidelines are implied through the action list, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings (e.g., config__open_relay). The description does not provide when-to-use or when-not-to-use information, leaving the agent to infer based on actions.

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