Manage Upgrade

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description adds critical behavior: 'the router will reboot automatically' and 'Supports dry-run.' This goes beyond annotations to clarify real-world effects.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then action details, then dry-run. Every word adds value.

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 tool with reboot, the description covers all behavioral aspects (check vs install, reboot, dry-run). No output schema is needed; description is sufficient for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal extra: it mentions dry-run support, but the schema already defines dryRun. No significant additional semantics.

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 'Trigger a RouterOS package update check or install.' It specifies two distinct actions (check and install) and notes the reboot consequence for install. This differentiates it from siblings like get_upgrade_status (status query) and manage_package (package management).

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 explains the tool's actions but does not explicitly compare to alternatives. It implies usage context via action descriptions, but lacks explicit 'when to use vs get_upgrade_status' guidance.

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