netlify-extension-services-updater

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the multi-account refusal behavior, which is genuinely useful context, but says nothing about scope of the change, required permissions, or reversibility beyond what annotations provide.

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?

It is short (two sentences), which is appropriate for a dispatcher-style tool. But the first sentence runs together without punctuation ('write operations change-extension-installation'), making the structure awkward rather than clean 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 destructive write with a nested schema, no output schema and 50% param coverage, the description covers the account restriction but does not explain the effect of shouldBeInstalled (install vs uninstall) or the operation's outcome. Annotations carry the safety profile, keeping this at a minimally adequate level.

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 50%; the account parameter is documented in-schema, and the description reinforces its semantics ('one account only, so a list or all is refused'), adding real meaning. However it leaves extensionSlug, shouldBeInstalled and teamId entirely unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 names the specific operation (change-extension-installation) but frames it as 'Select and run one of the following Netlify write operations' with only one option listed, and the missing punctuation makes the intent hard to parse. An agent can glean it is a write operation on an extension, but the verb+resource is delivered awkwardly.

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 states the account constraint clearly ('change-extension-installation: one account only, so a list or all is refused'), which is real usage guidance for the account argument. It offers no when-to-use vs sibling routing (e.g. extension-services-reader or other updaters).

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