update_server_startup

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, the description clarifies this is an 'admin action' with specific API key requirements, explains the partial update behavior (preserving unspecified fields), and notes the restart requirement for changes to take effect. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 perfectly concise and well-structured in three sentences. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose: stating the tool's function, explaining the partial update behavior, and providing critical implementation details (restart requirement and authentication). There is zero wasted verbiage.

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 no output schema, the description provides excellent context about authentication requirements, partial update behavior, and when changes become effective. It could potentially mention what happens if invalid values are provided or error conditions, but given the comprehensive annotations and schema coverage, it's largely complete for agent usage.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions the three configurable fields (startup, image, egg) and the partial update approach, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 startup configuration') and identifies the exact resources that can be modified ('startup command, Docker image, or egg template'). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_server_build or update_server_details by focusing specifically on startup configuration.

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 usage guidance: it specifies this is 'admin action' and 'Requires Application API key,' indicating permission requirements. It also explains when changes take effect ('Changes take effect after server restart') and provides a key behavioral guideline ('Only specify the fields you want to change - current values are preserved for unspecified fields').

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