client_manage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool writes/removes client config files, lists the ops, and explains the call shape including compatibility aliases. It does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing entries or requiring specific permissions, but it covers the main behaviors.

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 description is well-structured with clear sections for ops, call shape, and compatibility. It is concise despite the detail, using bullets and examples effectively. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool's complexity (multiple ops, various clients, call shape flexibility), the description is thorough. It explains the output of status(), the actions of configure/remove, and the compatibility alias. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be detailed, and the description covers the essential usage context.

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 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the op enum values and their expected parameters (e.g., 'client' is one of the ids from status()). It also explains the canonical call shape and flat parameters alias. However, it does not detail the 'params' object structure beyond the client field or explain session_id.

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 tool's purpose: configuring AI clients to use the MCP server by writing/removing client config files. It lists supported clients and differentiates from sibling tools which focus on scenes, resources, sessions, etc.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to set up AI clients) and details the ops (status, configure, remove) with explanations of each. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the scope is well-defined.

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