config

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

The description indicates destructive behavior (e.g., 'setup_reset: clear credentials and config') but the annotations set destructiveHint=false, creating a direct contradiction. The description does disclose behavioral traits like no-op for cache_clear, but the contradiction dominates, warranting a score of 1.

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 a clear main sentence followed by a bulleted list of actions and brief explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded. There is no redundancy or verbosity.

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's complexity (4 parameters, multiple actions, no output schema), the description effectively explains all actions and their effects. It covers the main aspects but could mention error handling or prerequisites, and does not address the sibling config__open_relay. Overall, it is fairly complete.

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% coverage with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds extra context for actions (e.g., 'set: update a runtime setting (notion has no mutable settings; returns info)'), which enriches the meaning of the action parameter beyond the schema. This additional value justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Manage server configuration and credential state.' This is a specific verb (manage) and resource (server configuration and credential state). Although there is a sibling tool config__open_relay, the description's scope is clear and distinct.

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?

The description lists actions and their effects but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling config__open_relay or other alternatives. It does not specify when not to use it or any prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from action names.

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