komodo_update_server

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 says 'Update' but does not disclose whether this is a destructive overwrite, whether partial configs are merged, whether permissions are required, or whether the change is reversible. The minimal 'Returns: Updated server information' is the only behavioral hint.

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 text is short and front-loaded with the core action, which is good. But the Args/Returns scaffolding is boilerplate that occupies most of the content while adding little semantic value beyond the parameter names already in the schema.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations, a 0%-covered nested-object parameter, and a large sibling set, the description is far too thin. It does not explain the config payload, mutation semantics, or how it differs from related tools, leaving major gaps an agent needs filled.

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%, so the schema documents neither parameter in prose. The description names id and config but adds no meaning: it does not explain the format of the ID, what keys config accepts, or whether the config is partial or full-replacement. The nested object param is entirely unspecified.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('Update an existing server'), which is enough to distinguish from komodo_create_server and komodo_delete_server. However, it does not differentiate from the many sibling update_* tools or indicate what part of the server config is updatable, leaving the purpose only minimally specific.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. With 28 sibling tools, many offering create/get/delete/update variants, the description gives the agent no help deciding when this is the right tool versus alternatives like komodo_get_server or komodo_create_server.

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