Convert MCP server config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does supply the critical trait: 'Returns target files; writes nothing' — a genuine non-destructive guarantee an agent cannot infer from schema. It stops short of describing failure behavior for malformed input or how 'auto' detection resolves ambiguity.

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, no filler; the conversion scope comes first and the non-writing guarantee is placed as a trailing, high-salience clause. Every phrase carries information.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema tool the description covers input forms, output behavior, and target set — enough to invoke correctly. Gaps remain around the 'auto' format resolution and validation errors, but nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is only 33% (only 'text' is documented), so the description must compensate — and it does, mapping 'mcpServers JSON or Codex TOML' to `text`/`format` and naming Claude Code/Desktop, Cursor, Gemini CLI, and Codex as the `targets` values. It does not explain the 'auto' enum value or the default-all-targets behavior, keeping it below 5.

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 ('Convert') and resource ('MCP server definitions') and enumerates the exact source/target format pairs (mcpServers JSON, Gemini httpUrl/url, Codex [mcp_servers.*]). An agent can tell this apart from convert_rules or migrate_project without opening a schema.

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 format-pair enumeration implies when the tool applies, and 'writes nothing' implicitly distinguishes it from a migration tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative among the siblings (convert_rules, detect_agent_configs, migrate_project).

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