ptero_app_patch_servers_server_build

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the HTTP method. It does not disclose whether the PATCH operation is destructive, triggers reinstall, or requires authentication. The behavioral impact of modifying the server build is not described.

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 concise, but it is under-specified. It merely repeats the HTTP route without adding context. Every sentence should provide value, and this single sentence is essentially a placeholder.

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 has 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. An AI agent would have no way to correctly construct the request body or understand the response. This is far below the minimum viable completeness for a PATCH operation.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The 'body' parameter is typed as 'any' with no guidance on expected fields (e.g., CPU, memory). The 'query' parameter is an arbitrary object. Without parameter descriptions, the agent cannot determine valid inputs.

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 is 'PATCH /api/application/servers/{server}/build', which is essentially a tautology with the tool name. It indicates a PATCH operation on a server's build but fails to clarify what 'build' means in the Pterodactyl context (e.g., CPU, memory, disk resources). This is insufficient for distinguishing it from other server patching tools.

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?

No usage guidelines are provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus siblings like ptero_app_patch_servers_server_details or ptero_app_patch_servers_server_startup. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it.

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