hcloud_update_server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely useful behavior not in the annotations — server names must be unique per Project and valid RFC 1123 hostnames — but it omits that label updates replace the entire label set, that omission is only in the schema, and never acknowledges the destructiveHint explicitly.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the constraint placed at the end where it belongs. However, the first line ("Update a Server") is pure repetition of the second sentence ("Updates a Server"), so it wastes a line of the small budget.

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 destructive mutation with a nested body object and no output schema, the description covers what can be changed and the naming rule, but says nothing about the overwrite semantics of labels, required permissions, or whether other server properties are out of scope here. Adequate but with visible gaps.

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 ~50%, so the description must contribute; it names the two updatable body fields and adds the non-obvious constraint that names are unique per Project and must be valid hostnames per RFC 1123, going beyond the schema's thin "New name to set." It adds nothing about labels semantics (overwrite behavior), which is left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Updates a Server") and enumerates the two mutable fields (name, labels), so the scope is unambiguous. It does not contrast itself with the many other server-mutating siblings (hcloud_server_change_type, hcloud_server_change_protection_action, etc.), leaving the agent to infer that only name/labels belong here.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the dozens of other server tools; the description never says that type, protection, network attachments and similar changes must go through the dedicated *_action endpoints. An agent wanting to rename a server is served, but one wanting to modify other server attributes gets no routing help.

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