cineflow_apply_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses little. For a tool that overwrites files across three targets it says nothing about whether local changes are discarded or stashed, whether network/auth is required, whether DaVinci Resolve must be closed, or whether the operation is reversible. 'Safely' gestures at protection without specifying it.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the primary action (pull upstream updates) before the secondary refreshes. It is appropriately short, though bundling three distinct effects into a single sentence slightly blurs which is primary.

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?

This is a multi-target write operation with no annotations and no output schema, so the description is the only source of behavioral information, and it is thin. An agent cannot learn what a successful run reports, what happens on a merge conflict, or what state the three targets are left in. Substantially more disclosure is warranted for this complexity.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. Coverage is moot at 100% with an empty 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 names specific verbs and resources: pull upstream parent repository updates, refresh skills in .kimi-code and .agents, and update DaVinci Resolve scripts. This is far more concrete than a tautology. It stops short of 5 because the boundary against siblings such as cineflow_check_updates and cineflow_davinci_sync is not drawn, so an agent cannot tell whether the script update here overlaps with the sync tool.

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 guidance on when to call this versus cineflow_check_updates, nor any prerequisite such as closing DaVinci Resolve or committing local work first. The word 'Safely' implies a guardrail but does not say what it is. The agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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