tv_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it refuses certain operations, implying the tool performs safety checks before proceeding. The emphasis on 'safely' and 'clean' communicates prerequisite condition awareness, though it does not describe return values or side effects beyond the update.

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 with a clear main clause and a list of refusal conditions. Every word adds value, making it concise and front-loaded.

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 0-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose, usage conditions, and safety behavior. It does not detail post-update state or how to interpret results, but this is a minimal gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-specific meaning. The empty schema is sufficient, and the description focuses on behavior rather than inputs, which is appropriate.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('fast-forward') and resource ('clean git checkout'), and specifies the source ('configured upstream'). It also differentiates by focusing on safe updates, which is distinct from other sibling tools that handle UI, data, or compatibility checks.

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 implies usage context: use when you want to safely update a git checkout, and it will refuse if certain unsafe conditions exist (package installs, untracked branches, dirty trees, diverged history). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a clear 'when not to use' beyond the refusal conditions.

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