create_plex_select_server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the endpoint: it does not mention that this selects the server for future operations, whether it replaces the current selection, or any side effects. Given annotations exist, a 2 is appropriate for missing contextual depth.

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 extremely short but not concise in a helpful way; it is under-specified. It begins with a redundant repetition of the endpoint, then lists parameters without any framing. There is no useful structure or front-loaded purpose statement, so the brevity reflects a lack of content rather than efficient communication.

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 tool with 5 parameters (3 required) and an output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the purpose, behavior, or expected response format. The parameter explanations are minimal and the tool's role in the Plex workflow is absent, leaving the agent with insufficient information to call it correctly.

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?

The schema has no descriptions (coverage 0%), so the description's parameter list is the only explanatory source. Each parameter is given a terse label (e.g., 'Machine identifier') that barely exceeds the schema title, and some are ambiguous (e.g., 'local: Is local connection' does not clarify expected values or format). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 only repeats the endpoint 'POST plex/select-server' and does not explain what selecting a server accomplishes. It is a near-tautology of the tool name and provides no functional context, such as 'selects the active Plex server for the application' or 'registers a new Plex server'. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like create_plex_test_connection or create_plex_webhook_create.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where another tool should be preferred. The description is entirely silent on usage context, leaving the agent to guess.

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