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

The description discloses that the tool writes to Axint-owned project instruction files, honors dryRun to suppress writes, and makes no network calls. Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description aligns with and extends 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 content is informative and front-loaded, but there is clear redundancy: 'Use this after axint.upgrade or npm/pip upgrades' is echoed by 'Use: use after package upgrades so local project-pack hints stop naming old Axint versions.' Trimming this duplication would tighten the description.

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 full parameter schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose, usage timing, side effects, and dryRun behavior. The only notable gap is the minor parameter naming mismatch, which prevents a perfect score.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context about how cwd and targetVersion map to behavior, but it uses slightly inconsistent names (cwd vs targetDir, targetVersion vs version), which may confuse rather than clarify.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update Axint-owned project-pack version hints after an upgrade.' It names concrete affected files and positions itself as a post-upgrade sync step, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like axint.upgrade.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use this after axint.upgrade or npm/pip upgrades.' The description repeats the invocation context in a 'Use:' clause, making it unmistakable when the tool should be applied.

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