Admina MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions that certain fields are 'always required' (which is useful), it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this is a partial or complete update, what happens to unspecified fields, permission requirements, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, and the second provides critical constraint information about required fields. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating different types of information.

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 3 parameters (including a complex nested object), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address key contextual questions: what the tool returns, error conditions, permission requirements, whether updates are partial or complete, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. The 100% schema coverage helps but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral context.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by emphasizing that three specific preset fields are 'always required' for updates, which clarifies semantics beyond the schema's required array. However, it doesn't explain the structure or purpose of the 'fields' object beyond what's evident from the schema, nor does it provide context about 'memo' usage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Update an existing device's information' with specific mention of what can be updated (preset fields, custom fields, device properties). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_device' by specifying 'existing device' and from 'update_device_custom_field' by mentioning broader scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'update_device_meta' which might be confusing.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'existing device' and noting required fields, suggesting it's for modifications rather than creation. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_device_custom_field' or 'update_device_meta', nor does it mention prerequisites or error conditions.

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