acs_update_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses auto-reconnect after parameter changes, which is important. However, it omits other behavioral aspects such as whether existing connections are dropped, whether changes are reversible, or what the response/status output looks like. The core 'no restart + auto reconnect' is useful but not comprehensive.

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 only two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the key behavior. Every word earns its place; no redundant 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 tool's simplicity (no output schema, no nested objects, all parameters optional), the description covers the main operational context: dynamic modification without restart, auto reconnect. It lacks explicit return-value information but the core use case is well expressed. Slightly more detail on side effects would push it to 5.

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 already covers all five parameters with clear descriptions (host, port, password, username, acsBasePath). The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond saying 'connection parameters', so the baseline of 3 applies due to full 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 tool's function: dynamically modify ACS server connection configuration without restarting the MCP server. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like acs_get_config or acs_upload_config, which deal with device configuration, not server connection settings.

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 when to use it: when you need to change connection parameters, and highlights the benefit of no restart and automatic reconnection. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the context of siblings and the 'no restart' point effectively steer the agent toward this tool for live config updates.

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