Update server

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

Description indicates mutation ('Edit server settings') and partial update behavior. Annotations already confirm non-readonly and non-destructive. However, missing critical behavioral details like required permissions (e.g., 'Manage Server') or side effects (e.g., verification level changes impact member verification).

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?

Two tightly written sentences that front-load the purpose and then provide a specific constraint. No unnecessary words; every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and moderate schema coverage, the description adequately covers core functionality and partial update behavior. However, missing context on permissions, the dry_run flag's purpose, and clarification that community enablement requires additional channels (though schema mentions it). Sufficient for simpler cases but incomplete for advanced usage.

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?

Description adds value beyond schema by summarizing the editable fields and emphasizing partial updates. It also explains a constraint on 'description' requiring Community server. However, not all 11 parameters are covered (e.g., dry_run, afk_timeout_seconds are omitted). Schema has 55% description coverage, so description compensates partially.

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 'Edit server settings' and lists specific fields (name, description, AFK behavior, channels, verification level). Distinguishes from sibling tools like update_channel and update_role, but does not explicitly differentiate from update_server_widget, which updates a different subset of server settings.

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?

Provides partial update behavior ('Only passed fields change') and a prerequisite for description ('Descriptions need a Community server'). However, no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., update_server_widget) or when not to use (e.g., if you lack permissions).

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