update_mcp_server_capabilities

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds context about immediacy and overriding integration settings. This provides behavioral insight beyond annotations, but it doesn't detail potential side effects, authorization needs, or reversibility. Given annotations cover some aspects, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence provides essential information. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 a complex schema and good annotations, the description covers key context: action, effect (immediate override), and prerequisite inspection step. It doesn't document output, but an output schema exists. It might be slightly lacking on preconditions (e.g., server existence) but overall is complete.

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 description doesn't need to elaborate much on parameters. It mentions 'enable or disable capabilities' which aligns with the 'enabled' field, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. The description does not explain the structure of the capabilities array or enum values, but the schema already documents these.

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 tool enables or disables capabilities on an MCP server, uses a specific verb ('update_mcp_server_capabilities' inherently suggests modification), and distinguishes from siblings like 'update_mcp_integration_capabilities' by noting it overrides integration-level settings. It also advises to use 'list_mcp_server_capabilities' first, further clarifying scope.

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 explicitly recommends using 'list_mcp_server_capabilities' first to inspect current capabilities, providing clear when-to-use guidance. It states changes take effect immediately and override integration settings, helping differentiate from other update tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list all alternatives.

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