server_properties_set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes the restart requirement, but it does not mention whether the operation updates or creates the key, what happens if the key is invalid, whether it is destructive, or any error conditions. The restart note is helpful but insufficient for full transparency.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant wording. It front-loads the core action and then adds the essential caveat. This structure is easy to parse and presents information in a logical order.

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 tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and a critical operational detail. However, it lacks information about expected output (e.g., success/failure indication), parameter validation, or potential side effects. It is adequate for a minimal tool but not fully comprehensive.

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 schema provides only parameter names (key and value) with no descriptions, and the tool description does not elaborate on them. It does not explain what constitutes a valid key (e.g., allowed properties) or the expected format for the value. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names, so agents cannot infer how to correctly populate them.

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: setting a single key in server.properties. It uses a specific verb (set) and a specific resource (server.properties), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool that retrieves properties. This makes its purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions that a server restart is required for changes to take effect, which is a useful caveat. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like server_properties_get or other configuration tools. The usage context is implied but not fully described.

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