Upgrade impact

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network behavior are already covered. The description adds that it consults the registry for changelog data, but doesn't mention caching, latency, or handling of missing/unpublished versions. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the call trigger. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 annotations cover safety and open-world behavior, and the schema fully documents all five parameters, the description supplies the output contract and a usage trigger. It is nearly complete, though it doesn't address result size or error cases when the package/version isn't found.

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%, with clear descriptions for all five parameters including defaults and enum semantics. The description adds no parameter detail beyond naming what the tool returns, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: what changes between installed and target version of one dependency. Enumerates the outputs (changelog entries, breaking changes, deprecations, security fixes, importer files), which distinguishes it clearly from siblings like vulnerability_scan or dependency_health.

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?

Explicitly says 'Call before upgrading or bumping a dependency,' which gives a clear when-to-use. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from upgrade_planner, the closest sibling, nor state when another tool is preferable.

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