manage_mcps

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

No annotations exist, so the description must bear full burden. It only states 'Returns text' and lists actions, failing to disclose side effects (e.g., state changes from register/unregister/reconnect), authorization needs, or any behavioral nuances per action. This is dangerously vague for a management tool.

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 front-loaded with purpose and action list. It is efficient but could be slightly improved by grouping actions by type or adding minimal context.

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?

Despite high complexity (10 parameters, multiple actions, no output schema), the description is extremely brief. It omits action-specific details, parameter dependencies, return format beyond 'text', and any operational constraints. This is far from complete.

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 descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond the schema. It does not specify which actions require which parameters, leaving the agent to infer from schema alone.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: managing MCP connections, with a list of specific actions. This distinguishes it from siblings like auth_mcp or execute_tool. However, it could be improved by briefly describing what each action does.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when to choose one action over another. For a multi-action tool, this omission significantly hinders correct selection and invocation.

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