update_server_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the detail that it 'Sends a POST request,' but does not explain whether the update is a partial merge or full replacement, what happens to missing keys, permission requirements, or any side effects beyond the HTTP call. For a mutation tool, key behavioral context is missing.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence. The second sentence, while adding a minor detail about the HTTP method, is not essential and could be omitted without losing core meaning. Overall, it is efficiently worded with no fluff.

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 simple two-parameter update tool, the description covers the basic purpose, and the output schema likely documents return values. However, it lacks important operational context such as whether settings are merged or replaced, which is critical for an update operation. The presence of an output schema mitigates but does not fully compensate for this gap.

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 both parameters (agent_id and settings) are already documented. The description merely restates that settings is a 'dict,' which aligns with the schema's object type, adding no new meaning. Baseline of 3 for high schema coverage is appropriate.

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 'Update a server agent's configuration,' combining a specific verb (Update) with a specific resource (server agent's configuration), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_server_agent and delete_server_agent. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools such as get_server_agent, delete_server_agent, or update_warning_policies, nor any prerequisites or use cases. Usage is only implied by the verb 'update,' but no exclusion or alternative scenarios are described.

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