update_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: only fields passed are changed, others remain unchanged. However, it does not mention potential side effects, validation, or error cases, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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, efficiently worded sentence that immediately states the purpose and then clarifies the update semantics. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and partial-update behavior. The schema handles parameter details, so the description is sufficiently complete for the agent to select and invoke the tool correctly, though it could mention the expected response or server existence requirement.

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?

Although the schema covers all 13 parameters with 100% description coverage, the description's "only pass fields to change, rest unchanged" adds important context about how omitted parameters are treated. This goes beyond the schema's optional flags by explicitly stating that omitted fields retain their current values, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 uses a specific verb ("Update") and resource ("server configuration"), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_server, delete_server, and rename_server. The additional clause about partial updates further clarifies the specific behavior, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 modifying existing server settings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rename_server for name-only changes. It also lacks any exclusion or prerequisite guidance, relying on the agent to infer from sibling names.

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