Plan Harness Relay MCP client setup

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'no-write' and 'validated,' which are consistent with the annotations but do not provide rich behavioral detail such as how validation works or what the patch contains.

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 a single, tightly written sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and deliverable while naming the supported targets, making it easy to scan.

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 tool with 9 parameters, 7 required, 0% schema documentation, and many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It explains what the tool produces but not where it fits in a setup workflow, what inputs are needed, or how to use it correctly.

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% while there are 9 parameters, including 7 required ones. The description does not explain any parameter meaning, relationships, or expected values, so an agent cannot infer how to fill in fields like endpointDescriptor, relayEntry, or scope.

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 action ('Generate'), a specific deliverable ('validated, no-write MCP configuration patch'), and the target clients (Codex, Claude Code, Cursor, OpenCode V2). This clearly distinguishes setup_plan from the sibling setup_doctor and other operational tools.

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 implies this tool is for planning a client setup without applying changes, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. With sibling tools like setup_doctor and doctor present, an agent is not told how to choose between them.

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