Attach Backend

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that attaching stops the managed backend and loses its sessions, that gr4-mcp never stops an attached backend, that sessions are shared with other clients, and that the URL is not persisted because ports change per launch. These are exactly the side effects and lifecycle constraints an agent needs before calling a switching tool.

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 first sentence front-loads both directions of the operation and the rest is dense with non-redundant detail. Minor deduction for awkward line-wrapped formatting that splits the url explanation across lines, making it slightly harder to scan.

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 one-parameter backend-switching tool with an output schema, the agent gets everything needed to choose a target and understand consequences. Missing only failure-mode guidance (invalid URL, 'studio' not found, unreachable host), which would matter for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it specifies the URL format (http:// optional), the literal sentinel value 'studio' with its lookup location (GR4 install var/logs), and the meaning of omission (return to gr4-mcp managed backend, which is the default). This fully documents the single parameter beyond the bare anyOf string 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Attach to an already running gr4cp_server') plus the inverse operation ('or go back to a private one'), so an agent can distinguish it from backend_status or list_sessions 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?

It gives the three concrete modes of the url argument (explicit URL, 'studio' lookup, omit for the managed backend) and contextualizes when each applies (gr4-studio launched it). It lacks explicit exclusions, such as what to do if the URL is unreachable or which sibling to call first to discover a running backend.

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