Update server

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), and idempotent. The description adds little behavioral context beyond that, such as side effects, partial update behavior, or authentication requirements. It does not contradict the annotations.

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?

Two brief sentences with no wasted words. The key operation is stated first, followed by the note about extra fields. This is appropriately concise for an MCP tool description.

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?

With 8 parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description is adequate but not rich. It covers the main purpose and the extra mechanism, but does not mention return values, partial update semantics, or any prerequisites. The annotations provide some context, but the lack of detail on field specifics and response format leaves gaps for an agent.

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 low (13%), but the description adds meaning by noting that common fields are exposed and other Coolify server fields go in 'extra'. This clarifies how to use the extra parameter, but individual property semantics for ip, name, port, user, etc., are not elaborated, leaving the agent to infer from property names.

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 the resource 'server', with the specific identifier 'UUID'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like createServer, deleteServer, and getServer by focusing on updating an existing server.

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 context of updating a server by UUID is clear, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like createServer or deleteServer. It does not state exclusions or specific scenarios, leaving usage implied rather than explicit.

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