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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that text is abuse-checked and the invite link is verified with Discord, that a save can be refused with a reason, which fields are immutable via API, and that an API key bound to the listing is required. Annotations only say the tool is non-readonly, idempotent and non-destructive; the description adds the real operational risk 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layers on validation, field restrictions and auth in tight sentences with no filler. It is dense but every sentence carries distinct information; slightly more length than an ideal minimum.

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 13-parameter mutation with no output schema, it covers auth, partial-update semantics, validation failure modes and out-of-scope fields. The main omission is what a successful call returns, which forces the agent to guess the response shape.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the schema cannot express: the call is a partial update ('send only the fields to change') and validation failures can reject the whole save. It stops short of clarifying interactions between fields.

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 and resource ('Change fields of your own listing') and immediately scopes it to the caller's own listing, which separates it from siblings like get_server, list_my_servers and search_servers. The reference to the voxelrank.com edit form gives the agent a concrete behavioral model for what the call does.

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 actionable usage rules: send only the fields to change, and address/game/Votifier/plugin settings must be changed on the website instead. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives (e.g. use get_server to read current values first), which keeps it from a 5.

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