What changes between two versions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load, and it does disclose the evidence sources (changelogs, GitHub release notes, migration guides, and an npm .d.ts API diff) plus the fallback to the pinright-recommended version when 'to' is omitted. It does not cover auth requirements, rate limits, or the shape of the response, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 front-loaded with the content the tool returns, followed by sources and then call conditions, in roughly the right order with no filler sentences. The 'Sources:' clause is dense and adds length, but each element is informative rather than redundant.

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 seven-parameter, zero-required read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, where it comes from, and the defaulting behavior well enough to invoke it correctly. Only the concrete response format and any size-pagination expectations (beyond the 'tokens' param) are left implicit.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the 'to' default and the libraryId version-as-'from' convention. The description restates the 'to' default and adds no syntax or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific resource and scope: breaking changes, removed/renamed APIs, config and default changes, split-off packages, deprecations, and fixed advisories between the project's current version and its target. That enumeration distinguishes it clearly from siblings like get-docs and check-package without needing to name them.

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 gives three concrete trigger conditions: before crossing a major, when a SECURITY NOTICE recommends a new major, and to fix a Dependabot PR. It also states the no-argument default behavior. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it or explicitly pointing at a sibling alternative, so it is not a full 5.

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