update_mcp_project_config

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It merely states the update action without disclosing side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites or merges), auth requirements, rate limits, or consequences of missing or invalid parameters. This is insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 that is concise and front-loaded. However, it sacrifices detail for brevity; additional information could be included without harming conciseness. Still, no waste.

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 is minimal: it does not explain the return value (likely success/failure), permissions needed, or any constraints. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond mentioning 'settings and auth settings', which are already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'MCP configuration', specifying the parts being updated ('settings and auth settings'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mcp_project_config (read) and install_mcp_project (install).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the tool's name and schema alone.

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