add_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful trait — the entry is kept across restarts — but says nothing about validation of the URL, whether a connection is attempted immediately, what happens on duplicate names, or whether authentication is required to add a server.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the persistence note. Every clause carries information the agent would not otherwise have.

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 two-parameter registration tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what the tool does, what the name means, and one behavioral property. Missing pieces are failure modes and ordering relative to login, but the essential call-path information is present.

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 50%; the url parameter is documented in the schema with an example base address, while name has no schema description. The description compensates for that gap by explaining the name is free-form ('dzbot', 'local'), which is the main piece of added meaning. It does not add anything about the url format beyond the schema example.

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 verb and resource: 'Add a collaboration server', plus the scope that the name is user-chosen. An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like list_servers or login. It stops short of naming when to prefer it over those siblings, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of ordering relative to login/join_session, and no stated prerequisites such as whether the server must already be reachable. The only usage-adjacent signal is the persistence note, which tells the agent the effect lasts but not when to invoke it.

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