save_server

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the confirmation token for overwriting and recommends setting the environment field. However, it omits details on first-time vs. update behavior, whether partial updates are allowed, return values, error conditions, or security implications, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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?

Two sentences: the first states the primary purpose, the second adds crucial usage guidance. No extraneous information, front-loaded, and every sentence serves a purpose.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimal. It covers the core function and the unique confirmation workflow, but lacks details on return values, error handling, and what happens on failure or partial updates. The schema descriptions are thorough, but the tool description could be more complete for an agent.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by advising to set the environment field to prevent production mishaps and clarifying that confirmationToken is required for overwriting, enriching the context beyond the schema for those two parameters.

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 saves server configuration and credentials. The confirmation token workflow and environment recommendation distinguish it from siblings like connect, exec, and list_servers, making its purpose specific and 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 implies the tool is for saving configurations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., for updating vs. creating, or when to use remove_server instead). No exclusions or guidance on tool selection are provided, limiting the agent's decision support.

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