UpdateMountServer

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Update' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical traits like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., service disruption), rate limits, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

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 (mutation with 2 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage), the description is inadequate. It lacks parameter explanations, behavioral context, usage guidelines, and output details. For a tool that modifies server configurations, this leaves too many unknowns for effective agent use.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description mentions 'mount server configuration' but doesn't explain the two parameters ('id' and 'body')—what they represent, expected formats, or constraints. It adds minimal value beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Update a mount server configuration' clearly states the verb ('Update') and resource ('mount server configuration'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'SetupMountServer' or 'GetMountServer', but the verb 'Update' implies modification of existing configuration versus initial setup or retrieval.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., an existing mount server), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'SetupMountServer' (likely for initial setup) or 'GetMountServer' (for retrieval). Usage is implied only by the verb 'Update'.

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