run_updater

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the action and a requirement but fails to disclose side effects (e.g., container restarts, potential downtime), error states, or post-conditions. The confirmation step is mentioned but not explained.

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 description is extremely short (single sentence) and lacks necessary details. It front-loads the action but omits parameter explanations, behavioral notes, and usage guidance. Conciseness here sacrifices informativeness.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain how to obtain the confirmation_token, what happens after running, or how this differs from check_updater_status or confirm_operation.

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?

The input schema has two parameters (env_id, agent_token) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not mention any parameters, leaving the agent to guess their meaning and usage. No value added beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Run the updater') and its purpose ('apply pending container updates'). It distinguishes the tool as the action that initiates updates, not just checking status. However, it could be more specific about what 'pending container updates' entails.

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 description mentions a requirement ('Requires confirmation via confirmation_token') but does not explain when to use this tool versus similar siblings like check_all_image_updates or confirm_operation. No context on prerequisites or alternatives is provided.

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