goclaw_mcp_server_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, potential side effects, or error conditions. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this represents a significant gap in transparency.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential information and contains no unnecessary elaboration. This is an example of efficient communication that respects the agent's need for quick comprehension.

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 mutation tool with 7 parameters, low schema coverage (29%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what configuration aspects can be updated, what the expected behavior is, what permissions are required, or what the tool returns. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly given the sparse contextual information provided.

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 low schema description coverage (29%), the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings, but it provides no parameter information whatsoever. The schema documents only the 'id' parameter (29% coverage), leaving six parameters (name, transport, command, args, url, enabled) completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds zero value beyond what the sparse schema provides.

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 ('a registered MCP server's configuration'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'goclaw_mcp_server_create' and 'goclaw_mcp_server_delete' by focusing on modification rather than creation or deletion. However, it doesn't specify what aspects of configuration can be updated, which prevents a perfect score.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing server ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from similar tools like 'goclaw_mcp_server_create' or 'goclaw_config_patch'. This leaves the agent without context for making informed decisions about tool selection.

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