add_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Add or update server configuration', implying an upsert behavior, but does not explain permission requirements, how existing configurations are handled, or the nature of write operations. This is minimal and insufficient for a mutation tool.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices important contextual information, so while concise, it is not ideal in structure for a complex tool.

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 13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and the presence of several related sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or operational context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which already documents all parameter purposes. The description's mention of 'server configuration' is generic and does not enhance understanding of individual parameters.

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 states the action (add or update) and resource (server configuration), making the tool's core function apparent. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'update_server', which likely handles updates only, so the overlap between add and update is ambiguous.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_server'. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or specific use cases, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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