panelica_domains_patch_v1_domains_id_webserver

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the explicit statement 'Mutating: changes server state' and 'Required scopes: domains:write', which are useful beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose more specific behavioral traits such as reversibility, failure modes, or side effects beyond a generic state change.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Additional lines for HTTP method, category, scopes, and mutation status are short and scannable. Some redundancy with the annotation title exists, but overall the structure is efficient.

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 mutating PATCH endpoint with an undeclared request body and no output schema, the description is not complete enough to invoke correctly. An agent would not know what fields the body should contain, what values are accepted, or what the response looks like. Even though it points to 'see API docs', the definition itself leaves a significant gap for constructing a valid request.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no meaning for the 'id' or 'body' parameters. The body schema is notably opaque ('Schema not statically declared — see API docs'), and the tool description does not compensate by describing what fields should be sent, so the parameter semantics remain weak despite the coverage baseline.

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 opens with 'Update webserver', a clear verb and resource, and the HTTP line identifies the exact endpoint. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like the GET webserver endpoint or other domain PATCH endpoints, though it does not specify what aspect of the webserver is being updated.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of sibling tools like the GET webserver endpoint for reading current settings, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the listed scope. The HTTP line implies mutability but does not explain appropriate usage context.

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