MCP Tool Admin

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 well covered. The description adds the list of callable actions and example payloads, and the schema notes that required fields depend on the action and are enforced by the admin owner. It does not disclose output format, error behavior, or action-specific required fields in detail, so transparency is average.

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 list of three action-result mappings with examples, requiring only six lines. It is front-loaded with action names and avoids verbose prose, though the examples are somewhat repetitive with the schema content.

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?

The schema is rich, but the description does not fully specify which payload fields apply to each of the three actions, and there is no output schema to clarify the result shape. The example payload covers the common 'query' field for all actions, and the note about legacy async actions adds context. Overall, minimally adequate but with gaps around action-specific required fields and return details.

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 100%, so the schema already describes the action enum and payload properties. The description's examples show the exact invocation shape with payload containing 'query', which reinforces parameter usage but does not add detailed semantics for optional parameters like bindVars, max_plans, or format. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 enumerates three specific admin operations (aql_query, aql_explain, aql_profile) with concrete invocation examples, making the tool's purpose clear. It is not a tautology—it identifies the tool as an admin action dispatcher—but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like mcp.arango or mcp.tool.collection, so it stops short of a 5.

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 and schema note that only aql_query, aql_explain, and aql_profile are currently callable, which tells the agent when to use this tool for those operations. It also directs legacy async actions to mcp.help get, providing an exclusion/alternative. However, it does not provide explicit when/when-not guidance for other sibling tools, so it is not a perfect 5.

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