crosspad_submodule_update

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description credibly reinforces safety by explicitly stating 'Destructive: discards local commits in the submodule that aren't on the remote branch.' This adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by clarifying exactly what destructive consequence occurs. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise sentences: the first states the operation, the second highlights the destructive consequence. Every sentence earns its place with minimal waste. Slightly more could be added about return/value but not required.

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 destructiveHint annotation plus an explicit warning in the description, and a full output schema being present, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the operation, the risk, and uses enums for both key parameters. Could mention the parent repo/branch relationship more, but adequate for a 3-param tool with strong schema and output schema.

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 the schema fully documents all 3 parameters (repo, submodule, branch). The description adds the git operation semantics ('checkout origin/<branch>') which implicitly explains branch usage, but mostly the schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 is appropriate given full coverage.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Update a submodule in a parent repo to the latest commit on a tracking branch', clearly naming the git operations (fetch + checkout origin/<branch> + stage). Distinguishes this from the many sibling tools (crosspad_commit, crosspad_repo_status, crosspad_repo_diff) by focusing on submodule updates specifically.

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 states what it does operationally but not explicitly when to use this vs alternatives. Among siblings, crosspad_commit and crosspad_apps_update exist but no alternatives are named. The 'on a tracking branch' phrasing implies intended usage context but doesn't explicitly declare when not to use it.

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