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

The description clearly discloses that set is a write operation, requires explicit user confirmation for each write, and takes effect on the next tool call or tools/list request. These behavioral details go well beyond the annotations, which only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive hints.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, prominent write-operation warning, and bulleted action list. There is slight redundancy between the 'WRITE OPERATION — REQUIRES EXPLICIT USER CONFIRMATION' header and the following sentence restating the same requirement, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 description provides everything needed to call the tool correctly: the two actions, the mode values, the required confirmation behavior, and the timing of effect. It does not describe the expected return shape, but there is no output schema and the invocation details are sufficiently complete for an agent.

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?

Although the input schema has 100% description coverage for its top-level properties, the nested params object is generic and does not enumerate the mode parameter. The description fills this critical gap by specifying mode as a required string with allowed values 'full_list' or 'search_execute', and also clarifies that get requires no params.

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 tool 'views or changes how MCP tools are presented' and explains the two presentation modes, full_list and search_execute. This precisely distinguishes it from related tools like set_tool_permission, which concerns permissions rather than presentation mode.

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 gives explicit context on when to use get vs set, and explains the practical difference between the two mode values. It does not explicitly compare against alternative tools, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to invoke it.

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