update_mod_cf

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does deliver real value: it discloses that the old jar is backed up and removed, which tells the agent the operation is destructive but recoverable. It omits other key traits for a mutation tool — whether the instance must be stopped, what happens when no matching release exists, and whether a restart is needed.

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 dense sentence with the resource, identifier options, update policy, and side effect all front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential side effect but leaves gaps around preconditions, the failure case (no newer release), and the opaque instanceId. Adequate but not sufficient for confident invocation.

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 the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'mod' accepts an index slug or project id, which meaningfully extends the bare string type, but 'instanceId' is left entirely undefined and there is no format or example for either.

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) and a precisely scoped resource (one CurseForge-installed mod), and the 'one ... mod' phrasing implicitly separates it from update_all_mods and from the generic update_mod sibling. An agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'to the latest release matching the instance' implies the update policy, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs check_mod_updates_cf, update_mod, or update_all_mods, and no stated preconditions (e.g., instance stopped, update actually available). Usage is implied rather than directed.

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