update_server_build

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the partial update behavior ('Only specify the fields you want to change - current values are preserved for unspecified fields'), the timing of changes ('Changes take effect after server restart'), and the authentication requirement ('Requires Application API key'). These details go beyond what annotations provide without contradicting them.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: the first states purpose and scope, the second explains behavioral details, and the third provides usage guidelines and prerequisites. Every sentence adds essential information with zero wasted words, making it front-loaded and highly readable.

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 destructive mutation tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, behavioral traits (partial updates, restart requirement), authentication needs, and sibling differentiation. However, it doesn't describe the return value or error conditions, which would be helpful given the complexity. The annotations provide safety context, making this reasonably complete but not exhaustive.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents all 11 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions the types of resources being updated (memory, CPU, etc.) which aligns with the schema but doesn't add significant semantic value beyond what's already in the parameter descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Update a server's resource limits') and enumerates the exact resources being modified (memory, CPU, disk, swap, IO weight, CPU pinning, and feature limits). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'update_server_details' which handles metadata changes, providing clear 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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'For server metadata (name, owner), use update_server_details.' It also specifies prerequisites: 'Requires Application API key' and indicates this is an 'admin action,' establishing clear context and exclusions.

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