Ajouter/Modifier un alias de serveur

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 ('enregistre ou met à jour') but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error handling. This is inadequate for a tool that modifies server data.

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 directly states the tool's function and key requirement without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with essential information.

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 complexity of a server configuration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on what 'informations de connexion' includes, how updates are handled, what happens on success/failure, and how this interacts with sibling tools, leaving the agent under-informed.

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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying that either a key path or password must be provided, which clarifies the expected inputs beyond the empty schema, earning a slight boost.

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 ('enregistre ou met à jour') and resource ('informations de connexion d'un serveur'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'server_list' or 'server_remove', which would be needed for 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 minimal guidance by mentioning 'soit un chemin de clé, soit un mot de passe', but it doesn't explain when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'server_remove' or 'api_add', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This leaves significant gaps in usage context.

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