Configure API Authentication

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description confirms by stating 'configure API key authentication', implying mutation, and adds transparency about deprecation. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the purpose, and the second adds a forward-looking deprecation note. Perfectly front-loaded.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters (1 required), full schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description adequately covers usage and deprecation context. It does not detail side effects or success/failure behavior, but annotations and output schema mitigate this.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the input schema already provides for the two parameters (apiKey and baseUrl).

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 states the verb 'configure' and resource 'API key authentication' for the Timesheet MCP server. It is distinct from all sibling tools, none of which involve authentication configuration.

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 tells when to use this tool ('when the user needs to configure API key authentication') and provides a deprecation note indicating future replacement with OAuth 2.1. It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the context is clear as there are no sibling tools for authentication.

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