update_server_cfg

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that a key is updated, but does not cover what happens if the key does not exist, whether other keys are preserved, whether changes require a restart, or any permission implications. For a mutation tool, this leaves significant ambiguity.

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action, names the resource, and immediately clarifies scope with examples. Every word contributes.

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 simple two-parameter mutation tool, the description is mostly adequate, especially with full schema coverage. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the agent is left wondering about return values and edge-case behavior such as unknown keys or save semantics. These gaps are notable but not fatal given the tool's low complexity.

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 already documents both parameters with high coverage (100%). The description adds only examples like 'hostname' and 'maxplayers' without enriching the semantics of 'key' or 'value'. This meets the baseline for schemas that carry the parameter documentation burden.

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 identifies a specific action ('update'), the target resource ('server.cfg'), and the scoped semantics ('a specific key'), with concrete examples. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_server_cfg and write_server_cfg without needing to open 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?

The description implies usage for targeted config updates, and 'specific key' hints at the distinction from whole-file operations, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives like write_server_cfg or set_server_root. No exclusion criteria or decision guidance is provided.

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