configure_server

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: writes to owner-only config file, takes effect immediately, no restart needed, never returns stored secret, merge on update, validate tests connection before saving and nothing is written on failure. This goes beyond minimal requirements.

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 a general overview followed by parameter documentation. It is somewhat long but every sentence provides value. Could be slightly tighter, but overall effective. No wasted words.

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?

Given the complexity (9 parameters, multiple authentication methods, validation, and merging logic), the description covers all essential aspects: effect, limitations, authentication options, and security behavior. The presence of an output schema (not shown) means return values need not be explained, but the description still adds value by noting it never returns stored secrets.

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 0%, but the description includes a detailed Args section explaining each parameter's purpose, requiredness (e.g., url required for new server), alternatives (api_key vs username+password), defaults, and constraints (verify_ssl default true). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's purpose: 'Add or update a UTMStack server connection (URL + credentials) and save it.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_server and list_servers by specifying it handles connection configuration. The verb 'Add or update' and resource 'server connection' are specific.

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 says when to use: 'when the user asks to connect the assistant to their UTMStack, or to change the URL or credentials of an existing connection.' It also clarifies what it does not do: 'Does not enable remote agent command execution' and suggests alternative methods (config file edit or init). The merge behavior on update is also clearly stated.

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