Maa Hot Update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it says nothing about what the update mutates, whether it needs network access, whether it overwrites existing resources, or whether it is reversible. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the mutation behavior itself is undisclosed.

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?

A single short phrase with no filler, so it is not verbose. But it is under-specified rather than efficient — the brevity comes at the cost of the context an agent needs.

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?

The absence of parameters and the presence of an output schema lower the burden considerably, so the description does not need to explain results. Still, for a state-changing operation with zero annotation coverage, the agent is left without any indication of effects, prerequisites, or how it differs from the other update tools.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify and no schema gap to compensate for. Baseline 4 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 identifies a specific verb ('manually update') and resource ('hot-update resources'), so the basic action is inferrable. However, it does not differentiate from closely named siblings such as maa_update, maa_self_update, maa_update_cli, and maa_update_core, leaving the agent unsure which update path applies.

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 when-to-use context is given, and no alternative is named despite five sibling tools whose names also imply updating. The word 'manually' vaguely hints at an on-demand trigger versus automatic updates, but this is never made explicit.

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