ptero_app_patch_servers_server_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior such as side effects, authorization needs, or what gets mutated. Only the HTTP verb 'PATCH' is stated, which implies modification but no specifics.

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 extremely short (one line), which is concise but at the cost of clarity. It is under-specified and fails to provide enough information to be useful.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It lacks details on return values, behavior, or required parameters beyond what the schema states.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning to the parameters. The schema defines 'server', 'query', and 'body' with generic types, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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 merely restates the HTTP method and endpoint ('PATCH /api/application/servers/{server}/details') without clarifying what 'details' means or what the tool actually does. It is a tautology of the tool name, providing no explicit verb-resource purpose.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include similar PATCH operations for build, startup, etc., but the description offers no context for differentiation.

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