UI Preset MCP Server

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

Annotations cover basic hints (non-readOnly, non-destructive, etc.), but the description adds valuable context: it explains the 'hot-swap' behavior (runtime change without restart), mentions optional preservation of runtime token overrides, and hints at session state implications. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 front-loaded with the core action and benefit, followed by a concise explanation of optional behavior. The Args and Returns sections are structured clearly without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (runtime preset swapping), lack of output schema, and rich annotations, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return summary, but could benefit from more detail on error cases or side effects (e.g., impact on active sessions).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of 'preserve_overrides' in context ('preserves any runtime token overrides applied in the current session'), which enriches the schema's technical description. However, it doesn't detail the 'preset_id' pattern or default behavior beyond the schema.

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 action ('hot-swap'), the resource ('active preset'), and the key benefit ('without restarting the server'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'load_preset' by emphasizing the runtime nature and 'preserve_overrides' functionality, making the purpose specific and well-differentiated.

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 provides clear context for when to use it ('while building' and 'switching between client presets'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives like 'load_preset' or 'diff_presets'. The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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