upgrade_plan

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's trailing 'Read-only' adds nothing. What does add value is the disclosure that the tool stops with a warning if planted malware is found, and that it reuses the scan_project computation — real behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the deliverable, then the phase contents, then the provenance and malware caveat. The long parenthetical phase list is dense but informative, and the closing 'Read-only' is a small piece of redundancy against the annotations.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well: it explains that the plan is phased, ordered, reason-annotated, and includes concrete steps with file names. Combined with the malware-warning behavior and the scan provenance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result.

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 both `path` and `offline` are already fully documented in the schema, including the network-skip semantics of offline. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a concrete deliverable — an ordered upgrade plan for React Native/Expo projects — and enumerates the phases it contains (security fixes, crash risks, store deadlines, RN/Expo upgrades, library replacements). It also distinguishes itself from its closest sibling by noting it is 'built from the same scan as scan_project,' so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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?

It gives clear contextual framing (derived from the scan_project scan, with a malware short-circuit) that implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer it over siblings like verify_upgrade or improve_app, nor does it name any exclusion conditions, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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