add_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does deliver real behavioral facts: the target file, that it is created if missing, and that the previous file is backed up. It does not disclose duplicate-name behavior, whether the instance must be closed, error cases, or what the call returns (no output schema exists).

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 sentences with no filler; the file target and backup behavior are front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 3-required-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the side effects well but leaves parameter formats and return value unaddressed. Adequate, not complete.

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 all three params (instanceId, name, ip) are undocumented. The description only indirectly explains instanceId via 'the instance's servers.dat'; it says nothing about the expected format of 'ip' (host vs host:port) or what 'name' represents in the server list entry.

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?

Specific verb + resource + storage target: 'Add a multiplayer server to the instance's servers.dat'. The file-level detail immediately separates it from sibling read tools (list_servers) and from remove_server, which is the only other writer of the same file.

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 statement of when to use this versus remove_server or list_servers, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether the instance must be stopped, or whether a duplicate name replaces an existing entry). Only an implicit 'adding a server' reading.

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