plex_server

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, giving little safety information. The description compensates by listing mutating operations (maintenance, restart, update), noting OS/wrapper limitations, and specifying the return format. It does not detail side effects like downtime, but overall it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, rationale, operations, return format, and examples. The PORTMANTEAU PATTERN RATIONALE is slightly meta and could be trimmed, but it is brief and helps justify the tool's existence. Overall, it is concise and front-loaded.

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 multi-operation tool with no output schema, the description provides a clear return format, six operation definitions, maintenance sub-operations, and two examples. It is reasonably complete for an agent to select and invoke operations, though per-operation result details are not exhaustively described.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, already explaining operation, maintenance_operation, and options. The tool description adds some operational context and examples, but does not enrich parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 opens with 'Comprehensive server management operations for Plex Media Server,' clearly identifying the resource and action scope. It then enumerates six distinct operations (status, info, health, maintenance, restart, update), which sharply differentiates it from the many plex_* sibling tools focused on libraries, media, search, etc.

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 positions the tool as consolidating server lifecycle and maintenance tasks and notes that it is for admin-level tasks. This provides clear context on when to use it, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use plex_library for library-specific tasks').

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