mcp_auto_install

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It is a mutating tool that writes config into nine different IDEs, yet the description never says whether existing entries are overwritten, backed up, or reversible, whether elevated permissions are needed, or what happens on partial failure. dryRun is only explained by the schema, not by the description.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the primary target, with the IDE list as trailing detail. No waste, though the parenthetical aside slightly delays the concrete scope.

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 mutating, multi-target config tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what and where but not the safety profile an agent needs (overwrite/rollback behavior, permissions, side effects). Adequate but with meaningful gaps.

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 description coverage is 100% and includes an enum and per-parameter descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting (baseline 3). The description adds no format or interaction detail beyond naming target IDEs in its scope sentence.

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?

States a specific verb pair (detect and install/configure) and a concrete resource (ssh-remote-mcp or any MCP server) and enumerates the target IDEs. This clearly separates it from the ssh_*/sftp_* siblings, which operate on remote hosts, not local IDE configuration. It stops short of describing what configuration changes are actually made, so 5 is not warranted.

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?

Use is implied by the description (run this to wire an MCP server into local IDEs) but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative named. With 11 sibling tools in a different domain, some guidance on prerequisites (e.g. is a running ssh host needed first?) would help.

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