update_server

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent behavior, and the description goes beyond them by stating the permission requirements (server-settings plus destructive access) and that server files/runtime can change. It does not say what happens post-update (e.g. runtime restart or rollback), which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the action and scope come first, followed by the gating condition and permission cost. Every clause carries decision-relevant 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 two-parameter, zero-required mutation tool with a full annotation set and no output schema, the description covers purpose, preconditions, and risk. Only the post-execution effect (whether the server restarts or the update fails atomically) is left unstated.

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 both `beta` (channel choice) and `server_id` (default from WISP_SERVER_ID) are already fully documented. The description adds only that the channel switch is optional, so it sits at the schema-covered baseline.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Run the Wisp egg update action for the selected server") plus its scope option (beta channel), which is enough to separate it from general mutators like power or send_console_command. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead when the intent is not an egg update.

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?

"Use only for an explicit update request" is an explicit use-condition, and it states the prerequisites (server-settings plus destructive access). No named alternative tool is offered for near-miss cases, but the positive and negative conditions are both present.

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