_mcp_self_update

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses the core behavior (git pull) and the dry-run condition. However, it omits details about permissions, conflict resolution, or whether local changes are preserved, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 a single sentence that is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the main action but sacrifices clarity by not separating the dry-run note or parameter details.

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?

The tool has an output schema and a single parameter, but the description does not explain the output, error cases, or the effect of the parameter. An agent needs more context to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 only parameter 'ref' is not mentioned in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameter meaning but fails to do so. The agent cannot infer that 'ref' selects a branch or tag.

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 explicitly states the tool updates the MCP server via git pull, and adds a specific condition (dry-run if FTOS_GIT_REMOTE not set). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like _mcp_build_docker_image or _mcp_quantize_model.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., network access, repository setup) or scenarios where a dry-run is insufficient.

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