update_server

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the requirement of 'server-settings' access, which is useful. However, beyond the annotation-confirmed destructive nature, it does not describe side effects (e.g., downtime, version changes) or reversibility, so only partial additional transparency is provided.

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 two short sentences (12 words) and front-loads the core action first. Every word earns its place, and the access requirement is conveyed efficiently without redundancy.

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 destructive tool with no output schema and minimal parameters, the description is incomplete. It omits return value information, practical effects on the server, and meaning of the 'beta' flag. Given the destructive nature (per annotation), more context is needed to guide safe usage.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter information. Neither 'beta' nor 'server_id' is explained, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from defaults and types alone. The description fails to compensate for the lack of 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 action: 'Run the Wisp egg update action.' It uses a specific verb ('Run') and identifies the resource ('Wisp egg update'). While 'egg update' is domain-specific jargon, it distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like server_status or send_console_command.

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 when to use the tool (updating a server's egg) and states prerequisites ('Requires server-settings and destructive access'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, though the 'destructive access' requirement hints at caution.

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