update_server_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and the permission requirement, but does not disclose side effects, whether the update is partial or full, what happens on failure, or the effect of the patch. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient behavioral transparency.

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 terse: one sentence plus an ADMIN requirement. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the key action. However, the second sentence is a permission note that might be better placed elsewhere, though it is relevant and not wasted.

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 presence of an output schema and a single patch parameter, the description is not complete. It fails to mention that get_server_settings can be used to view current settings before updating, does not list any updatable settings, and provides no information about the patch structure. A richer description would help the agent construct 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'patch' parameter, and the description does not compensate. It does not explain what keys the patch object should contain, the format of the values, or that it represents a partial update despite the name 'patch'. The agent receives no useful guidance beyond the schema's generic object type.

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 'Update server settings. Requires ADMIN.' clearly identifies the action (update) and the resource (server settings), making it distinct from the sibling tool get_server_settings. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only addition is the ADMIN requirement, which is a permission note rather than usage guidance. There is no mention of complementary tools like get_server_settings or scenarios where this tool is appropriate.

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