set_server_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only mentions 'saving to configuration file'. It does not reveal potential side effects (e.g., overwrites existing config, requires restart, affects ongoing tasks), authorization needs, or whether the tool is destructive. As a configuration mutation tool, more transparency is needed.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but at the expense of necessary details. While it is front-loaded and avoids verbosity, it lacks elaboration on parameters and behavior. For a tool with this complexity (2 parameters), it is adequate but not optimal.

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 that there are no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return value (though output schema exists), the effect on the system, or how the configuration file is used. Sibling tools like 'list_servers' and 'set_default_server' suggest a broader context, but the description does not connect to that workflow.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist outside the schema. The description briefly mentions 'server address', but does not explain the meaning of the 'server' parameter (default 'default') or the required format of 'server_url'. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names, which are already clear from the schema.

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: setting a server address and saving it to a configuration file. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'set_default_server', which likely sets a default server from existing entries, or 'register' which adds a new server. However, it could be more precise about the exact resource being modified.

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 like 'set_default_server' or 'register'. It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the server must already exist, or note that this tool should be used for initial configuration or URL updates. The lack of explicit usage context leaves the agent without decision support.

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