Freshservice MCP 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 states 'Update' which implies a mutation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified fields, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects undefined.

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 simple update operation and front-loads the essential information (verb and resource).

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 this is a mutation tool with 5 parameters (2 required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain parameter meanings, behavioral implications, or usage context. While the output schema might cover return values, the description doesn't provide enough information for safe and correct tool invocation.

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 parameters are completely undocumented in the schema. The description adds no information about what the five parameters mean, their purposes, or how they interact. It doesn't even mention that category_id and name are required. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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 action ('Update') and resource ('a solution category in Freshservice'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_solution_category' by specifying an update operation rather than creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other update tools like 'update_solution_article' or 'update_solution_folder' beyond the resource name.

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., needing an existing category ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar update tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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