Freshservice MCP server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) but doesn't disclose whether it requires specific permissions, what happens to unspecified fields (partial vs. full updates), whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits/error conditions. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious implication of 'update'.

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 that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential information (update operation on agent details).

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 mutation tool with 13 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what gets updated, how partial updates work, what permissions are needed, what the response contains, or how to handle errors. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without extensive trial and error.

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 0% schema description coverage and 13 parameters (12 optional, 1 required), the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't mention the required 'agent_id' parameter or explain what any of the fields represent (address, background_information, department_ids, etc.). The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('agent details in the Freshservice'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_agent' by specifying an update operation rather than creation. However, it doesn't specify what types of details can be updated beyond the general term.

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 'create_agent' or 'filter_agents'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (such as needing an existing agent ID) or contextual constraints. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameter schema alone.

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