update_haproxy_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'Update'—it doesn't mention that changes may require a separate apply step, that settings are optional (all nullable), or that apply_immediately controls whether changes take effect right away. The description is silent on any side effects.

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 concise sentence with no fluff, and it is front-loaded. However, this brevity crosses into under-specification—it is so short that it fails to communicate the tool's purpose beyond the name. Still, from a pure conciseness standpoint, it wastes no words, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 the tool (7 parameters, optional fields, output schema, and numerous sibling HAProxy tools), the description is critically incomplete. It doesn't explain how this tool relates to apply_haproxy_changes, which is essential for the agent to know when to call which tool. It also doesn't hint at the idempotent behavior or that partial updates are allowed. The presence of an output schema doesn't compensate for missing usage context.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any parameter information beyond what the schema already provides. It could have summarized the settings or highlighted key behaviors like the apply_immediately flag, but that omission doesn't lower the score since the schema is self-sufficient.

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 'Update HAProxy service settings' essentially restates the tool name (update_haproxy_settings) with no additional specificity. It does not list which settings can be updated or what the outcome will be, making it nearly a tautology. A clear description would mention the specific settings (e.g., enable, maxconn, nbthread) or distinguish this from related HAProxy tools.

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 does not mention that get_haproxy_settings is for reading current settings, nor that apply_haproxy_changes may be needed to activate changes. There is no context about prerequisites or whether this tool can be used for partial updates.

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