upgrade_egovframe_project

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

With no annotations, the description describes key behaviors: user-modified files preserved without force, dryRun default, backup before overwrite, and rejection on hard conflicts. It could mention error cases or permissions, but overall it provides good transparency.

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?

Three sentences, each conveying a distinct behavior without redundancy. Front-loaded with the main action, then details on preserving files, dry-run, backup, and conflict handling. No wasted words.

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 description explains the tool's operation but omits return value or output format (e.g., what dryRun displays, success/error messages). With no output schema, this is a gap. Also, it doesn't specify when to use vs. sibling tools, but in context, upgrade is clear.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant detail beyond schema descriptions for parameters like force, dryRun, components, and projectDir. The overall behavioral context adds marginal value.

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 it updates installed common components by comparing with upstream, with specific actions like preserving user files, dry-run, backup, and conflict refusal. It is distinct from sibling tools (add, create, apply, etc.) due to the upgrade focus.

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 usage with dryRun for planning and force for overwriting, guiding when to use each mode. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like add_egovframe_components or apply_egovframe_recipe, though the name implies upgrade.

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