switch_mcp_auth_to_scalekit

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

There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral implications. It says the tool will switch/update authentication, but does not mention side effects, reversibility, prerequisites, or impact on existing authentication configuration.

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 short and purpose is front-loaded. The final sentence is somewhat redundant with the first, but overall it is efficient and easy 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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a mutating operation, more context is needed: what happens to the previous auth configuration, whether the operation is reversible, and what a successful response looks like. The description covers only the basic action.

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?

The description adds some semantic meaning by identifying 'id' as the MCP server's id and giving a format for environmentId. However, it does not explain what environmentId represents or why it is needed, which leaves a meaningful gap at 0% schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Switch the authentication of an existing MCP server') and a clear target ('to Scalekit authentication'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like register_mcp_server or update_mcp_server, as it targets auth switching specifically.

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 the tool is for existing MCP servers, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as update_mcp_server or register_mcp_server. No exclusions or conditions are stated.

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