Bump version

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

Annotations declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: the force flag explains orphan-tag recovery, including deleting a local tag and the precondition that the orphan tag must not exist on the remote. The dry_run and verbose notes also clarify non-obvious interaction. It falls short of stating that the normal path rewrites the version file and creates a tag/commit, which is the primary side effect.

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?

The one-line purpose is front-loaded, followed by a compact Args block that earns its space given 0% schema coverage, plus a brief Returns line. No filler, no restating of annotations.

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 no output schema and no annotations covering side effects, the description leaves out what files are modified, whether a commit/tag/push is produced, and what GitResult actually contains beyond its type name. The force documentation shows the author can disclose this level of detail, so the omissions are meaningful.

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 carry all parameter meaning, and it documents all six parameters including the allowed values for part (major, minor, patch), which is absent from the schema. The boolean parameters get only thin 'whether to...' phrasing, and edge cases like allow_dirty behavior on a dirty tree are not explained.

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+resource ('Bump the version of the project') and names the underlying mechanism (bump2version), which is more precise than the title alone. However, it gives no differentiation from close siblings such as repository_manager_bulk_bump or repository_manager_phased_bumpversion, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which of these 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites for running a bump (clean tree, tags), and no routing to the bulk or phased bump siblings. The agent must infer scope and applicability entirely.

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