setup

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the behavior: the key is verified against the live API, saved to ~/.config/jev-mcp/key with permissions 0600, never echoed back, and env var takes precedence. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs to anticipate side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage conditions, parameter meaning, and return format. Every sentence adds substantive detail without redundancy.

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 single-parameter onboarding tool, the description covers when to use it, how the key is handled, where it is stored, permissions, precedence, and the return value. Nothing critical is missing for correct 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?

The schema provides no description for api_key (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by stating that api_key is the TypeSafe API key and telling the user where to obtain one, which fully clarifies the parameter's meaning.

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 specifies a precise action: verify a TypeSafe API key with a live call and store it locally. It clearly identifies the tool as one-time onboarding, which distinguishes it from the unrelated sibling tools (noul, choice, score, classify).

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use when TYPESAFE_API_KEY is not set in the server environment.' It also explains precedence behavior with an existing env var, so an agent knows when this tool is appropriate and when it is unnecessary.

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