Pega DX MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully communicates that this is a mutation operation ('Updates'), specifies access control requirements ('system verifies user access to the attachment category'), and clarifies limitations ('only updates the title and category'). It doesn't mention error conditions or rate limits, but provides substantial behavioral context for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 perfectly concise with three focused sentences: the core functionality, the limitations, and the access control. Each sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by important constraints.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job covering the essential context: what it modifies, what it doesn't modify, and access requirements. It could be more complete by mentioning potential error conditions or the response format, but given the comprehensive parameter schema coverage, it provides adequate context for effective tool selection.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing detailed documentation for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'name and category' which are already well-documented in the schema. It doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or usage patterns that aren't already in the schema descriptions.

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 specific action ('Updates'), the resource ('existing attachment'), and the exact fields affected ('name and category'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'delete_attachment' and 'upload_attachment' by specifying it's for modifying existing attachments rather than creating or removing them.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to modify the name and category of an existing attachment. It explicitly states what the tool does NOT do ('does not update the filename and URL'), which helps differentiate it from other attachment-related operations. However, it doesn't name specific alternative tools for different scenarios.

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