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 but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention permission requirements, whether this is a destructive mutation, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with 9 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 9 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and multiple sibling update tools, the description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description fails to provide necessary context about usage, parameters, permissions, or behavioral characteristics that would help an agent use this tool correctly.

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 none of the 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no parameter information whatsoever - it doesn't mention any fields that can be updated, required vs optional parameters, or what the parameters represent. This leaves all parameter semantics undocumented.

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 product in Freshservice'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling update tools like update_agent, update_ticket, or update_solution_article, which follow the same pattern for different resources.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing the product ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from create_product or other update_* tools. This leaves the agent without contextual usage information.

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