register_server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'persistent access' and 'without repeatedly providing credentials', hinting at stateful storage, but does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as where credentials are stored, security implications, permission requirements, or error handling. For a tool that handles SSH credentials, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('register a server with SSH credentials') and adds value with the benefit ('for persistent access without repeatedly providing credentials'). Every word earns its place with zero waste.

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?

Given the complexity of a tool that registers servers with SSH credentials, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on storage location, security practices, success/failure responses, or integration with sibling tools like 'list_registered_servers'. For a credential-handling tool, this is inadequate.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('register a server') and the resource ('server with SSH credentials'), with the explicit goal of 'persistent access without repeatedly providing credentials'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_registered_servers' (read-only) and 'remove_server' (deletion).

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 usage context ('for persistent access') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_server_credentials' or 'setup_mcp_admin'. It provides clear intent but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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