manage_servers

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only lists actions without describing side effects, destructive nature (e.g., 'remove'), permissions required, or impact of test/retry operations. The examples show invocation but not consequences, leaving significant transparency gaps 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 concise, front-loaded with the purpose, and uses examples effectively to illustrate usage. The example list is longer than strictly necessary but each line earns its place by clarifying action-parameter combinations.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 6 actions) and no annotations, the description is not fully complete: it lacks per-action parameter requirements and edge cases. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed, but the action-parameter mapping remains underspecified.

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 0%, and the description partly compensates by demonstrating usage of name, command, and description in examples. However, it does not explain parameters like args, base_url, or transport, nor how parameters vary across actions, so it adds only partial meaning beyond the schema.

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 it 'Manage[s] ToolMux backend MCP servers' and enumerates concrete actions (list, add, remove, validate, test, retry), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from siblings that focus on tool schema/count/list or file operations, though 'manage' is somewhat broad and relies on the action list for specificity.

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?

Usage is implied through examples such as adding or removing a server with specific parameters, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_all_tools or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, so the guidance is present but implicit.

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