update_mcp_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose one side effect: the URL will be made available in the audience of the token. It omits permissions, reversibility, and whether changing useScalekitAuthentication triggers additional auth-switching behavior.

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 text is a dense single paragraph mixing purpose, parameter list, and side-effect notes. It contains no wasted sentences, but bulleted or grouped structure would make the parameter requirements and conditionals much easier to parse.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, it covers all inputs and one side effect, making it minimally viable. It does not specify exact schema property names, return behavior, or error/permission prerequisites, so an agent may still need to infer some details.

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 description explains every parameter's purpose, units, format, and conditional requirements, which is valuable given 0% schema description coverage. However, it uses names like 'url', 'access_token_expiry', and 'use_scalekit_authentication' that do not match the schema's camelCase names ('mcpServerUrl', 'accessTokenExpiry', 'useScalekitAuthentication'), creating invocation confusion.

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 an existing MCP server') and the resource/environment, which distinguishes it from list/register peers. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

It provides in-tool conditional guidance, such as 'provider is needed only when use_scalekit_authentication is chosen to be false', and implies the update context. However, it never says when to prefer this tool over register_mcp_server or switch_mcp_auth_to_scalekit.

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