update_all_mods

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

With no annotations at all, the description does real work: it discloses that prerelease-only updates are never applied silently and that distribution-blocked CurseForge files are reported rather than attempted, plus what the result reports enumerate. It still omits whether the operation is reversible, whether a backup is taken, and whether the instance must be stopped.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with scope and with no filler, but the single dense second sentence packs the reporting behaviour, the prerelease rule and the blocked-file rule together, which is slightly heavier going than needed.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the outcome well enough to interpret the result. The remaining gap is the unexplained 'instance' argument, which an agent must guess or look up elsewhere.

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 0% and the single 'instance' parameter is undocumented; the description only implies it is the target instance and never says whether it is an ID, name, or path. Nothing compensates for the schema 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?

States a specific verb ('update every mod in an instance') plus scope ('newer matching release, across Modrinth-managed and CurseForge-managed mods'), which cleanly separates it from the per-mod siblings update_mod and update_mod_cf.

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 batch-vs-single distinction and the reference to 'the same rule as check_mod_updates' give clear context for when this tool applies. It stops short of an explicit exclusion such as 'use update_mod to update one mod' or a precondition like the instance being closed.

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