update_auth_server

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

Annotations already declare this as mutating (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description simply restates the update verb without adding extra context such as partial-update semantics, error behavior for missing IDs, or the need to fetch the ID via search_auth_servers. 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?

A single, concise sentence that directly states the purpose. No filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple update operation.

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?

Combined with the fully described input schema and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's basic function. It lacks explicit partial-update semantics, but the optional parameters with null defaults in the schema compensate for that gap. Given the rich schema and annotations, the description is complete enough.

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 100%, so all 19 parameters already have detailed descriptions. The tool description itself provides no additional parameter guidance, which is acceptable per the baseline for high schema coverage.

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), the resource (authentication server), and the scope (by ID). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_auth_server, search_auth_servers, and delete_auth_server by explicitly indicating an existing server update.

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 implies a clear use case: modify an already existing auth server identified by its ID. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is unambiguous given the tool name and the 'by ID' qualifier.

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