update_server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation operation ('Update') but doesn't specify permissions required, whether changes are reversible, side effects (e.g., downtime), or response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action and fields. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 mutation nature, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It lacks critical details like behavioral traits, parameter meanings beyond basic names, and usage context, making it insufficient for safe and effective agent operation.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'name' and 'labels' as updatable fields, which partially maps to two of the three parameters, but doesn't explain the 'id' parameter's role or provide any syntax or format details beyond the schema. This adds limited value over the bare 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 ('Update') and resource ('a server'), and specifies the updatable fields ('name, labels'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this from other update tools like 'update_firewall' or 'update_volume' beyond the resource type, preventing a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., server existence), exclusions (e.g., what cannot be updated), or comparisons to sibling tools like 'change_server_type' or 'reset_server', leaving the agent with minimal contextual direction.

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