update_pack

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the operation and return type but does not disclose whether the update replaces the entire configuration or merges with existing values, nor any permissions or side effects. This lacks necessary transparency 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 concise and well-structured in an Args/Returns format. It avoids unnecessary words, though the parameter lines slightly duplicate schema information. It remains efficient and readable.

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's moderate complexity, no annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the basic operation and parameters. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, leaving gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool without further context.

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 description must compensate. It provides brief definitions for each parameter, such as 'Name of the pack to update' and 'New list of servers (optional)'. However, it does not clarify critical semantics like whether the 'servers' list replaces or appends to existing servers, which limits its 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 tool updates an existing pack, using a specific verb+resource construction. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_pack, install_pack, and uninstall_pack by focusing on modifying an existing entity.

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 implies use for modifying pack configuration, but provides no explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_server_to_pack or remove_server_from_pack. It does not mention any exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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