Save MCP profile

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

Beyond the annotations (which already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent), the description adds that an API key is required and that Smithery currently needs a public unauthenticated Streamable HTTP endpoint plus an owned namespace/server name. This is meaningful operational context, though it does not describe what gets destroyed or what the save response looks like.

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 two tight sentences with the API-key requirement front-loaded. Every sentence carries some information, though the middle sentence is slightly awkward and the overall brevity is under-informative for a 24-parameter tool.

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, non-idempotent tool with 24 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain what 'save' actually does, what side effects occur, how most fields are used, or what an agent should expect after invocation.

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 only 8% across 24 parameters. The description adds constraints for a few fields (endpoint must be public/unauthenticated/Streamable HTTP, namespace/server name must be owned), but it leaves the vast majority of parameters—name, version, category, auth_type, directory_categories, install_instructions, etc.—unexplained.

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 says 'Save accurate public profile fields,' which gives a verb and resource, but 'save' is ambiguous between create and update and 'public profile fields' is vague. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling creation tools like create_launch or import_repository.

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 phrase 'before checking all selected destination prerequisites' gives a sequencing hint, implying this should be called prior to prerequisite checks. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions and leaves the broader workflow context implicit.

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