submit_mcp_source

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent already knows this reaches outside the system and mutates state. The description adds that it performs discovery of available tools and derives coverage, but does not disclose side effects such as whether the endpoint is persisted, whether repeated calls create duplicate sources, or any auth/rate-limit constraints beyond what the schema's enum notes say.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It could be slightly tighter, but nothing is wasted.

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 non-idempotent external-network tool with no output schema, the description should say what the probe yields or persists and what success looks like. It gestures at 'derives topic coverage' but leaves the return/state outcome unspecified, so the definition is adequate but incomplete.

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 each parameter (mcpUrl, userId, mcpAuthType) is documented in the schema, including the Phase 1 'none'-only restriction. The description adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (connect and probe) and a specific resource (BYO-MCP endpoint), plus the downstream purpose (topic coverage for profile modeling). It is clear what the tool does, though it never names the sibling tools in the onboarding flow (e.g. begin_expert_onboarding, finalize_byo_mcp_onboarding) that an agent must sequence it against.

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 description implies this is a step in expert onboarding but gives no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g. that a user/expert context must exist first), and no alternatives to compare against. An agent must infer its place in the onboarding sequence from the sibling names alone.

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