tigergraph__authenticate

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable context: credentials live only in the session's in-memory connection pool and are dropped on disconnect. It also clarifies that omitting profile replaces the default profile's connection, and that other profiles are untouched. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, then explains the profile behavior, stdio exception, and auth requirements. It's a bit long but every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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 credential-registration tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when it's needed, how profiles work, and the auth alternatives. It doesn't explain return values, but the tool's purpose is clear enough that an agent can call it correctly. The stdio exception and in-memory scope are valuable additions.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 13 parameters. The description adds some meaning by explaining the auth alternatives (api_token/jwt_token OR username+password) and the profile semantics, but it doesn't add much detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Register') and resource ('TigerGraph credentials for the current MCP session'), and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_connections and show_connection. It also explains the re-pointing behavior, which makes the tool's purpose 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?

The description explicitly explains when to use this tool (to register credentials for a session), when not to use it (stdio mode uses env-var profiles and does not need this tool), and how to target a specific profile vs the default. It also states the required auth alternatives (api_token/jwt_token OR username+password), which is strong usage guidance.

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