Update dependency

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's job is to add context. It does not explain the dry_run flag, whether the file is rewritten in place, whether a lockfile is refreshed, or whether the change is reversible. For a file-mutating tool with zero additional behavioral disclosure, this is thin.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the operation and its target files come first. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is wasted.

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, 0% parameter documentation, and a crowded set of overlapping version-bump siblings, the description is too sparse. It omits dry_run behavior, return information, and any differentiation from related tools, leaving the agent to guess.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies the semantics of file_path (a pyproject or requirements deps file), package_name, and new_version by framing the operation as pinning a package's version. The fourth parameter, dry_run, is never mentioned, leaving a real 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 and resource ('Update a package's pinned version') and narrows scope to deps files (pyproject or requirements), which is more precise than the title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent sibling tools like repository_manager_bulk_bump or repository_manager_bump_version, which an agent must disambiguate on its own.

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 guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the many sibling bump/version tools that could be chosen instead. The agent gets no signal about when this single-dependency update is preferable to bulk_bump or phased_bumpversion.

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