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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only lists updatable fields and gives no information about mutation semantics, required authentication beyond the schema-required api_key, idempotency, side effects, or response behavior. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, compact sentence that fronts the core action and resource, then lists fields. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or padding.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It omits patch semantics (partial vs full replacement), authentication requirements, expected outcomes, and how status values behave. The schema fills in parameter details, but broader operational context is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions such as 'New server name' and 'Server status (active/paused)'. The description adds no semantic value beyond listing field names, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Update') on a specific resource ('server settings') and lists the editable fields, distinguishing it clearly from siblings like create_server, delete_server, get_server, and list_servers.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus create_server, delete_server, or get_server. The verb 'Update' implies usage, but there is no mention of prerequisites, partial vs full updates, or conditions under which this tool is appropriate.

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