add_mcp_tool_to_letta

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

The description adds useful context about the two-step process (registration + attachment) and prerequisites, but annotations are minimal (only a title), so it carries most of the behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose potential side effects like whether registration is persistent, if duplicates are handled, or error conditions.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and dual action, the second provides prerequisite tools. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 complexity (registration + attachment), minimal annotations, but 100% schema coverage and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is mostly complete. It could improve by mentioning error cases or idempotency, but the workflow guidance and clear purpose make it strong.

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 schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps.

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 specific action ('registers a tool from a connected MCP server as a native Letta tool AND attaches it to a specified agent'), identifies the resource (MCP tool), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'attach_tool' (which likely attaches existing tools) and 'upload_tool' (which may upload custom tools).

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?

It explicitly provides when-to-use guidance by naming two alternative tools ('list_mcp_tools_by_server to find available tools, and list_agents to get agent IDs') that should be used first to gather required information, creating a clear workflow context.

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