Change server RAM

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool changes RAM allocation and notes a plan limit, but it does not mention behavioral consequences like whether the server restarts, whether changes take effect immediately, or if any permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and followed by a relevant constraint. Every sentence contributes meaning, and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple but lacks essential context: no information about the server parameter's format or identifier, and no explanation of post-change effects (e.g., restart required, downtime). Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is too sparse to fully guide an agent.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50%, the description only partially compensates. It mentions 'RAM allocation' but does not clarify the 'server' parameter at all, which has no description in the schema. The 'ram' parameter is already documented in the schema as 'New RAM in GB', so the description adds little value.

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 clearly states the action: 'Change the RAM allocation of a Minehut server.' This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes the tool from siblings like start, stop, restart, and logs. The added note about plan limits reinforces scope.

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?

Usage is implied: the description tells you what the tool does, so agents can infer it's for adjusting server RAM. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives or mention any prerequisites/exclusions, such as whether the server must be stopped.

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