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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false and openWorld=false/true profile, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds value beyond them by disclosing the deferred-application trait ('applies at the next restart') and the removal path ('from: none removes it'), plus that the server object is returned. It omits whether an existing pack is replaced/validated, which is relevant for a destructive op.

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?

Four short clauses, front-loaded with the action and the source enumeration, then the apply-timing caveat, then the return value. No filler and nothing repeated from the annotations.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description supplies the missing behavioral essentials: deferred application, removal semantics, the mandatory-pack follow-up and the return value. Only the interaction between the upload lifecycle siblings (startAssetUpload/inspectAssetUpload before using 'upload') is left implicit.

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?

Reported schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries more burden than usual. It does map the mutually exclusive 'from' modes conceptually, but never names the actual discriminators (projectId, key, url) or explains that serverId comes from listServers, leaving the three payload shapes to be inferred from structure alone.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('the resource pack players are offered on join') and immediately enumerates the four mutually exclusive sources (Modrinth, uploaded .zip, link, none = removal). The distinction from sibling tools like updateServer and startAssetUpload is clear because this is the only tool that assigns the pack.

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 the agent concrete next-step routing: apply with restartToApplySettings, make mandatory via resourcePackRequired in updateServer. This tells the agent what to do after and around this call. It stops short of stating prerequisites or when-not-to-use (e.g. that an upload must be completed first), which is why it is not a 5.

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