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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'update' implying mutation but doesn't disclose permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to unspecified fields. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but fails to provide necessary context for a mutation tool.

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 state the purpose and basic usage. There's no wasted text, though it could benefit from being slightly more informative given the tool's complexity.

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 mutation tool with 12 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid update, which fields are mutable versus read-only (though schema indicates some), or what the response contains. The complexity demands more guidance than provided.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'resource ID and the fields to update', which is already implied by the tool name and schema. 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 states the tool 'Update[s] a specific VNI' which provides a clear verb and resource. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'vnisUpdateFabricVni' vs 'fabricsUpdateFabric' or 'vrfsUpdateFabricVrf', leaving ambiguity about scope and hierarchy.

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 only provides basic usage instructions ('pass the resource ID and the fields to update as arguments') without guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vnisAddFabricVnis' or 'vnisDeleteFabricVni'. No context about prerequisites, dependencies, or exclusions is mentioned.

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