Generate the server's run config

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: what files get written, where, and the refusal-on-lint-errors constraint. It stops short of detailing return values or failure modes in depth.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and structured into workspace vs. checkout cases. Dense but each clause carries information; only mildly verbose.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, and it does list generated artifacts and the test template. However, it omits return format specifics and any credentials/permission requirements, leaving gaps for a generation tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by embedding category and id in the path template servers/<category>/<id>/mcp.json, hinting at their role, but adds no format constraints or allowed values.

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 gives a clear purpose (making a linted entry runnable by generating config files) and details the concrete outputs, which helps distinguish it from siblings like lint_entry or save_entry. The verb phrasing 'Make ... runnable' is slightly abstract but the enumerated artifacts clarify intent.

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 mentions 'Refuses entries with lint errors,' which implies a prerequisite but not an explicit workflow. It never states when to use this versus alternatives such as save_entry, lint_entry, or test_server, leaving usage to inference.

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