zhook-mcp-server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't describe permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error conditions, or what happens to unspecified configuration fields. For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear name and structured schema, though this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness in other dimensions.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (partial vs. full replacement), success/failure responses, or how it interacts with sibling tools. The agent lacks critical context to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 description mentions 'configuration' which aligns with the 'config' parameter in the schema, but adds no specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 67% schema description coverage (4 of 6 parameters have descriptions in schema), the baseline is 3. The description doesn't compensate for the 33% gap (hookId and destinationId lack schema descriptions) or provide additional context about parameter relationships.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing destination's configuration'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as an update operation rather than creation or deletion, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_transformation' beyond the resource name.

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 alternatives like 'create_destination' or 'get_destination'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing destination), exclusions, or contextual triggers. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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