update_mcp_server

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 indicates a mutation ('update') but does not disclose whether it overwrites or merges the config, triggers a restart, requires specific permissions, or returns a success/failure response. This lack of detail is insufficient for an agent to anticipate side effects.

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, clear sentence with no redundant information. It achieves conciseness while conveying the core purpose.

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 update tool with two parameters (one nested) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but missing critical context: it does not explain the return value, behavior when server_name doesn't exist, or whether the config is merged or replaced. The nested config object adds complexity that the description does not address.

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 the parameter descriptions in the schema are comprehensive. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides (server_name and config with nested fields). Baseline 3 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 the verb 'Update', the resource 'MCP server configuration', and the method 'by name'. It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_mcp_server (for new servers), get_mcp_server (for retrieval), and delete_mcp_server (for removal).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the server must exist). The context of sibling tools implies its purpose, but no explicit when/when-not criteria are given.

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