Hyperfabric MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but only states it's an update operation. It doesn't mention whether this requires specific permissions, if it's idempotent, what happens to unspecified fields, error conditions, or side effects. For a mutation tool with 25 parameters, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and basic usage. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, though this comes at the cost of completeness.

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 (25 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails behaviorally, doesn't guide usage relative to siblings, and provides no context about the management port resource or update constraints.

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 schema already documents all 25 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond stating you need to 'pass the resource ID and the fields to update,' which is implied by the tool name. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Update') and resource ('a specific management port'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'nodesUpdateFabricNode' or 'nodesUpdatePort', which appear to update different resources in the same domain.

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 basic usage syntax ('pass the resource ID and the fields to update as arguments') but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or distinguish it from similar update tools in the sibling list.

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