manage_mcps

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

No annotations exist. The description does not disclose side effects (e.g., unregister destroys a connection, reconnect modifies state), permissions needed, or what 'returns text' means. The behavioral impact of actions is left entirely implicit.

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 very short (two sentences) with no unnecessary words. But it omits critical details like the full action list and parameter dependencies, which is under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 10 parameters, many conditional (e.g., name required for certain actions), the tool is complex. The description lacks any conditional logic, output structure details, or explanation of persistence scopes, making it incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds no extra meaning and even omits two valid actions from the schema list, which could mislead. This reduces the value.

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 'Manage MCP connections', clearly indicating the tool's domain. However, it lists only 5 actions (register, unregister, reconnect, list, status) while the schema includes 7 (adding health_check, list_stale_overrides), which may confuse an agent about available actions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like auth_mcp or execute_tool. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions.

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