switch_mcp_auth_to_scalekit

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the caller-OAuth requirement and clarifies that the switch is unconditional ('always sends the switch request'), implying no dry-run/preview. It does not explain reversibility of clearing the external provider, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and the sibling-routing exclusion follows immediately. The sentence 'The call always sends the switch request' is terse to the point of ambiguity but still earns its place as a no-preview disclosure.

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 destructive, idempotent, no-output-schema mutation on two required ids, the description covers scope, prerequisite auth, sibling alternative, and absence of field edits. Reversibility/effect on the cleared external provider is left unstated.

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 both parameters carry format patterns (app_<id>, env_<id>), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource: clears the external provider on one registered MCP server and moves it to Scalekit auth. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling update_mcp_server, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

States the alternative (update_mcp_server) for name/URL/other fields and explicitly says this tool does not edit those fields, giving a clear when-to-use vs when-to-use-the-other boundary. It also surfaces the prerequisite that the caller's OAuth token is required.

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