Update server

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds that only passed fields change, indicating a non-destructive partial update. It also notes that descriptions require a Community server, a useful prerequisite. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three short, information-dense sentences, with the main action first and no redundant text. The conditional about Community servers is placed at the end appropriately.

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 an 11-parameter update tool, the description covers the key behavior and a prerequisite, but it does not mention the dry_run parameter or what the tool returns. Given no output schema, a brief note on the return value would improve completeness, though the tool is still usable.

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?

With schema coverage at 55%, the description helps by mapping listed fields to parameters like name, description, afk_timeout_seconds, and verification_level. However, it omits dry_run and guild, and does not fully compensate for the undocumented parameters; schema descriptions cover some of these fields.

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?

Clearly states the tool edits server settings and enumerates specific settings (name, description, AFK behavior, channels, verification level). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_server_widget or update_onboarding by focusing on core server configuration fields.

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 use for modifying general server settings and clarifies partial-update semantics ('Only passed fields change'). It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it over other update tools.

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