update_mcp_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation mutates the server installation via NPM, but does not disclose side effects like service restarts, downtime, modification of server state, or potential breakage.

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 a single concise sentence that packs the verb, object, and method without waste. Every word contributes meaning and the key mechanism is front-loaded.

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?

Although the tool is parameter-free, it is a mutating self-update with no annotations and no output schema. The description does not explain the expected outcome, post-conditions, or whether the operation is safe to run in a running server environment, so relevant context is missing.

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 tool takes no parameters and the schema covers 100% of the (empty) parameter space, so there is no parameter information for the description to supplement. The baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('self-update'), the target ('SAMP-MCP server'), and mechanism ('via NPM'), which clearly identifies the operation. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_for_updates and update_server_cfg without ambiguity.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool, whether to check for updates first, or how it relates to sibling tools such as check_for_updates. The agent is left to infer usage context entirely from the tool's name and mechanism.

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