update_mcp_server_config_route

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, which tells the agent this is a non-idempotent write that is not destructive. However, the description adds nothing beyond this: it doesn't clarify what happens when fields are omitted (partial update vs full replace), whether the server must exist, or any side effects of reconfiguration. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is the appropriate baseline for the description adding no extra context.

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, short phrase that is front-loaded but largely uninformative. It is concise but borders on the tautological, providing no additional structure or actionable detail. The brevity is not a virtue here since it sacrifices substance.

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?

With 15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations beyond the basic safety hints, and only 40% schema coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It offers no information about the tool's behavior, parameter meanings, or usage context, leaving an agent unable to use the tool correctly without resorting to external knowledge.

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 40%, meaning over half of the 15 parameters have no description in the schema. The tool description provides zero parameter information to compensate. Critical parameters like execution_mode, interruption_mode, disable_compression, and response_timeout_secs are entirely undocumented in both the description and the schema. The description does not help an agent understand what to pass.

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 'Update Mcp Server Configuration' is essentially a restatement of the tool name (update_mcp_server_config_route) with no added specificity about what configuration fields are affected. It does distinguish the resource (MCP server config) but gives no verb-level detail beyond the name itself. Given the many sibling tools around MCP servers (update_mcp_server_approval_policy_route, update_mcp_tool_config_override_route), this description fails to differentiate scope.

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?

No guidance whatsoever about when to use this tool versus siblings like update_mcp_server_approval_policy_route or update_mcp_tool_config_override_route. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions. An agent would have to guess which MCP update tool to invoke.

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