update_mcp_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Update,' which trivially implies mutation, but it does not disclose whether the update merges fields or replaces the entire configuration, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or what the response will contain.

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 sentence, concise and front-loaded with the primary action. It has no redundant words, but its brevity omits useful detail that would not necessarily hurt conciseness.

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 tool with a nested 'updates' object and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how updates affect existing configuration (e.g., partial vs. full replacement), what the response looks like, or how this tool relates to the many sibling tools beyond the implicit add/update distinction.

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 coverage is only 50%, with only 'id' described and the nested 'updates' object and its properties lacking descriptions. The description adds no parameter explanations, leaving fields like 'whenToUse', 'fallbackTool', and 'configuration' unclear.

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 action ('Update') and the resource ('existing MCP tool configuration'), distinguishing it from add_mcp_tool for creation. However, it does not enumerate the specific fields that can be updated, which limits its specificity.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_mcp_tool. The word 'existing' implies it is for modifying already-added tools, but this is not stated directly, and no other usage conditions or exclusions are provided.

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