server_maintain

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

Beyond annotations (idempotent, non-readonly, non-destructive), the description adds valuable behavioral details: which actions are blocked for bare servers, the need for specific credentials, and that snapshot is not included. This provides safety and expectation-setting without contradicting annotations.

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 remarkably concise: three sentences covering the tool's purpose, actions, constraints, prerequisites, and a cross-reference. Every sentence carries essential information, and the structure (purpose -> actions -> exclusions/requirements) is logical and front-loaded.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers the tool's behavior, prerequisites, and limitations. It omits details on synchronous vs async execution and error handling, but the output schema likely captures return values. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already describes parameters. The description enhances the 'action' parameter by explaining each enum value's behavior and steps (e.g., 'maintain' runs 5 steps). It does not add value for 'server' or 'skipReboot', but the action enrichment is significant.

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 'Maintain Kastell servers' and enumerates three specific actions (update, restart, maintain) with detailed explanations of their scope and limitations. It distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the server_backup tool for snapshots, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 explicit usage conditions: actions restricted to Coolify servers vs bare servers, prerequisites (SSH access, API tokens), and the unavailability of restart for manual servers. It also advises using server_backup for snapshots. However, it does not contrast with other sibling tools like server_doctor or server_fix, leaving some usage context implicit.

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