upgrade_helm_chart

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true). The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as authorization needs, side effects, or rollback behavior, which would be valuable for an upgrade operation.

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 short sentence, which is concise but lacks sufficient detail. It could be expanded slightly without sacrificing conciseness, e.g., by mentioning that the release must already exist.

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?

No output schema is present, and the description does not explain return values, error handling, or the upgrade process. For a tool with 7 parameters and a nested object, this is incomplete.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the input schema already describes all parameters. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('upgrade') and resource ('existing Helm chart release'), clearly indicating what the tool does. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'install_helm_chart' for new installations, which would be a minor improvement.

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 the release must exist ('existing') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'install_helm_chart'. No prerequisites or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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