Обновление выделенного сервера

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

With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds the scoping constraint of 'name and/or comment' and the requirement that at least one field be passed. This clarifies partial update semantics, though it does not discuss errors or permissions.

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, focused sentence that immediately states what the tool does and the key usage rule. No wasted words.

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?

For a simple update tool with three well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior. It could mention return values or error conditions, but given the low complexity and annotation coverage, it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema describes each parameter. The description adds the important relational constraint that at least one of name or comment must be provided, which is not enforced by the schema itself. This adds meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb 'Изменяет' (changes) with a clear resource 'выделенного сервера' (dedicated server) and specifies the exact parameters affected: name and/or comment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_dedicated_server or get_dedicated_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 description states that both fields are optional but at least one must be provided, which is a clear usage constraint. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context of what the tool does is clear.

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