update_mod

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 the old jar is backed up before removal (reversibility) and that it fails clearly when the file is unknown to Modrinth (failure mode). It still leaves open whether the instance must be stopped, whether the mod is re-resolved for the current loader/MC version, and what a success response contains.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the backup caveat plus failure mode follow immediately. Every clause adds information.

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 mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description covers consequences and failure but not preconditions or parameter meaning. It is adequate to identify the tool but not sufficient to invoke it confidently without inspecting the schema or guessing at 'file'.

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%, so both required parameters ('instance' and 'file') are undocumented everywhere. The description does not clarify whether 'instance' is an id or a name, nor whether 'file' is a jar filename, a path, or a Modrinth project slug — arguably the most important ambiguity for this tool.

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 and resource ('Update one mod jar to the latest Modrinth version matching the instance'), and the words 'one' and 'Modrinth' implicitly separate it from update_all_mods and update_mod_cf. It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'matching the instance', but the description never says when to prefer this over check_mod_updates, update_all_mods, or a plain reinstall via install_mod. No prerequisites (e.g. mod must already be installed, instance must be stopped) are given.

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