opencode_mcp_add

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. For a mutation tool it says nothing about whether the server is persisted or only lives for the current instance, whether the server is started/validated on add, whether adding an existing name overwrites, or what the response looks like. 'Dynamically' hints at a runtime-only effect but is never defined.

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?

A single short sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, but it is under-specified rather than concise: for a mutation tool with a free-form config object, one line leaves the critical detail (config structure) entirely unaddressed.

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?

A mutating tool with no annotations, no output schema, an undocumented nested 'config' object, and a required-name collision question is left almost entirely unexplained. The description gives an agent nothing needed to actually construct a valid call.

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 33% and only 'directory' is documented; 'name' and 'config' rely entirely on the schema. 'config' is a free-form nested object with no sub-schema and no description anywhere, so an agent has no way to know the required shape (command, args, env, type, etc.), and the description does not compensate for that gap.

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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (MCP server) with the qualifier 'dynamically', which conveys runtime registration rather than config-file editing. It is clear on its own, but it does nothing to distinguish itself from the only adjacent sibling, opencode_mcp_status, or to explain what 'dynamically' means operationally.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative (e.g. editing config via opencode_config_update versus using this tool). The word 'dynamically' is the only implied context, and it is not explained.

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