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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the confirmation gating (confirmed/impactConfirmed must be true) and the 'Never returns passwords' guarantee, though it doesn't describe reversibility or side effects on existing config.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the required gating flags and password non-disclosure are stated directly.

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?

With an output schema, rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing behavioral context (confirmation requirements, password handling). Slightly incomplete on what exactly changes in the store's configuration, but overall sufficient to invoke correctly.

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 documents all four parameters, including the confirmed/impactConfirmed semantics and that channelOAuthId comes from hgr_list_channels. The description reinforces but adds little beyond the schema; baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Updates) and resource (No-API Server credentials/configuration) scoped to one visible store/channel using the exact WAPI credentials array. This clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like hgr_get_noapi_servers and hgr_get_dashboard_getnoapiservers.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: channelOAuthId must come from hgr_list_channels, and both confirmed and impactConfirmed must be true. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like the add/save credentials tools, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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