upgradeSpecificAptPackage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'sudo', implying privilege escalation, but does not detail other important behaviors such as whether the upgrade is non-interactive, what happens if the package is not installed, or if dependencies are updated.

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 extremely concise (6 words), which is good for readability. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, making it under-specified. A slightly longer description with key behavioral notes would be more effective.

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 simple tool, the description should cover basic behavior like error conditions and return values. It does not mention output or potential issues, leaving the agent uninformed. The absence of output schema increases the need for description completeness.

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 has 1 parameter with 0% coverage in the description. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides (package name). It does not explain the format, constraints, or purpose of the parameter.

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 action ('upgrade'), the target ('specific apt package'), and the method ('using sudo'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like installAptPackage or removeAptPackage.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Siblings like installAptPackage or updateAptPackages are not mentioned, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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