update_mcp_server

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the description's job was to add behavioral context beyond that — but it adds none. It does not disclose whether the update is partial (only provided fields change) or a full replacement, whether the 'config' object overwrites the entire configuration, or any validation side effects. For a mutation tool, the update semantics are a significant undisclosed 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?

One short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though it is minimal to the point of bordering on under-specification rather than purposeful conciseness.

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 tool with 8 parameters, 3 enums, a nested config object, and no output schema, a single sentence is insufficient. It leaves open what the tool returns, how partial updates behave, and whether unspecified fields are preserved or reset. The schema and annotations cover a lot, but the description fails to close genuine gaps that an agent would need before calling it correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. Each parameter has a terse 'Novo X' ('New X') description conveying that it sets a new value, and three params have enums. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, and the 'config' object remains vague (additionalProperties: {}) in both schema and description, but the schema does the heavy lifting as expected.

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 'Atualiza configuração de um MCP server existente' ('Updates configuration of an existing MCP server') states a specific verb (update), resource (MCP server), and scope (existing), which clearly separates it from siblings like create_mcp_server, delete_mcp_server, get_mcp_server, and test_mcp_server. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the action+resource is specific enough. Minor wrinkle: the description is in Portuguese while the tool name and annotation title are English, which could reduce clarity for agents without Portuguese support.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of test_mcp_server for validating changed configs, no prerequisites (e.g., server must exist), and no exclusions. The only implied context is 'existing server' (opposed to create_mcp_server for new ones), which is passive rather than explicit.

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