Set Server Url

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key side effect — the value is written to a config file, making the change persistent — which is genuinely useful. But it says nothing about whether an existing entry is overwritten, whether the default server is affected, or what validation occurs on the URL.

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?

A single compact sentence with the write-and-persist behavior front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity edges into under-specification given the undocumented parameters.

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 config-mutating tool with a declared output schema but zero annotation coverage and 0% parameter documentation, the description leaves too much open. The unexplained 'server' parameter and the unaddressed overlap with set_default_server are gaps an agent must guess through.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does not. It references the server address, which maps to the required server_url, but the second parameter 'server' (defaulting to empty string) is never mentioned and remains entirely opaque — an agent cannot tell how it relates to server_url.

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 specific verb and resource: set the server address and save it to the configuration file. The persistence is explicit, so the action is distinguishable from a pure in-memory setter. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling set_default_server or explain how the two differ.

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 on when to use this versus set_default_server, list_servers, remove_server, or the 'server' parameter. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the sibling names alone.

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