update_mcp_server

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, non-destructive, open-world), and the description adds useful context: changes apply immediately and URL/auth are managed elsewhere. It does not mention permission requirements or that idempotentHint=false implies repeated updates may behave non-idempotently, leaving a small gap.

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 tight clauses with no filler; the primary action and scope come first, followed by the sibling routing note. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers scope and the sibling boundary, though it could note prerequisites or permission needs for a mutation tool.

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% with only three simple parameters, so the schema fully documents id, name, and description. The description restates the editable fields but adds no format or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (MCP server) and explicitly bounds the editable fields to name or description. It clearly distinguishes itself from update_mcp_integration, which handles URL and auth, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative (update_mcp_integration) and the condition that selects it ('URL and auth live on the parent integration'). This is exactly the when-to-use-vs-sibling routing an agent needs.

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