MCP Arango Surface

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows operations may be destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral detail by specifying the output type for each action: raw HTTP response for exec, summaries for list, matches for search, and contract for describe. It does not detail potential side effects or rate limits, but the annotation covers the safety profile.

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 compact bullet-style list of five actions with examples, front-loading the action names and using a consistent pattern. It is efficient and without fluff, though an introductory line stating the overall purpose would make it slightly clearer and more self-contained.

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 dispatcher tool with five nested actions and no output schema, the description provides per-action output descriptions and examples, covering discovery (list/search) and execution (exec/describe/call). It does not elaborate on pagination, error handling, or authentication, but the schema description adds context about exposing OpenAPI operations without hundreds of separate tools.

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 already covers 50% of parameter descriptions (e.g., target required for describe/exec/call, query for search, limit). The description adds concrete payload examples for each action, such as payload={"target":"getServerAvailability","params":{}} for exec versus payload={"target":"getServerAvailability"} for describe, clarifying how parameters map to actions beyond the schema's generic field descriptions.

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 enumerates each action with a specific verb and result: list returns 'summaries', search returns 'matches', exec returns 'Raw ArangoDB HTTP response', describe returns 'operation contract', and call is a 'compatibility alias for exec'. This distinguishes the sub-actions from each other and from sibling MCP tools, providing a precise purpose.

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 via examples (e.g., search with query, exec with target), and the schema mentions 'Prefer search -> exec; call remains as a compatibility alias,' but the description itself does not explicitly state when to use the tool overall or when to choose one action over another. It lacks direct exclusions or alternative tool references.

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