gateway.update_server

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

Despite no annotations, the description transparently discloses that the tool mutates the server by updating and restarting it. It also details the conditional refusal to restart when pending requests exist and the effect of force=true. While it does not mention potential side effects like version compatibility or downtime, the core behaviors are clearly described. The lack of annotations is compensated by the explicit statements in the description.

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 concise yet informative, comprising three sentences that cover purpose, when to call, and behavioral nuance. It is well-structured, starting with the primary action, then usage context, and finally a caveat about pending requests. No unnecessary words or repetition; every sentence adds value.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description adequately covers all necessary context: the action (update and restart), the trigger (check for updates), and the behavioral condition (force). It provides enough information for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without needing additional details. The description is self-sufficient.

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 schema provides descriptions for both parameters: 'Name of server to update' and 'Cancel this server's pending requests before restarting'. These descriptions are clear and adequate, and the tool description adds further context about force, explaining its purpose. The semantics are unambiguous, though the parameter descriptions are minimal. Overall, the meaning is well conveyed.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Update a subordinate MCP server package to latest version and restart it.' It uses a specific verb ('update') and a clear resource ('subordinate MCP server package'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'restart_server' by emphasizing the update aspect, making it easy for an agent to select this tool for update operations.

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 clear guidance on when to call: 'Call this to check for and apply an update' and explains that the gateway does not volunteer update notices, so proactive checking is needed. It also mentions the conditional behavior with pending requests and force, giving explicit instructions on how to override the default behavior. This is sufficient for an agent to know when and how to use the tool.

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