Update Server Configuration

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is partly covered. The description adds the useful trait that changes apply live without a restart, but omits whether omitted fields are preserved (partial vs. full replacement) and whether changes survive a restart – important for a non-idempotent write.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the live-update benefit is placed where it will be read first. Slightly under-specified rather than padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a 12-parameter, fully-optional mutation tool the description leaves the field semantics, partial-update behavior, and persistence unanswered. The structural note about flat keys vs. a nested "config" object lives in the schema, not the description.

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 only 8% – 11 of 12 parameters have no description at all. The description names "instruction level," which does not even correspond to a parameter, and lumps the many briefing_* knobs under "briefing preferences" without explaining any of them. It does not 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Dynamically update the MCP server configuration") and parenthetically enumerates the affected areas (instruction level, tool filters, briefing preferences). An agent can tell this is runtime config mutation rather than entry/project CRUD, though no sibling is named for contrast (and indeed no other config tool exists).

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?

"Without restarting the server" implies when to use it – live, in-session reconfiguration – which is meaningful context. But there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of how this interacts with server startup config, and no statement of whether changes persist.

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