milehost_self_update

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

The description transparently states that the tool downloads and applies a new version from an official source. However, with no annotations provided, it does not disclose potential side effects like server restart, session interruption, reversibility, or failure behavior, which an agent should know before auto-running 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the usage mandate is valuable and directly actionable.

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?

The description covers the core purpose and when to trigger the update, and the schema documents parameters. However, with no output schema or annotations, it omits return behavior and post-update effects (e.g., whether the server restarts or session needs reconnection), leaving gaps for an agent handling failures autonomously.

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 100% and both parameters (force, branch) have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Downloads and applies the latest version of MileHost MCP Server') and identifies the exact source repository. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like milehost_check_updates, but the action described is distinct enough for an agent to infer this is the update-application 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?

The AI AGENT MANDATE provides explicit trigger conditions: run on operation failure, missing tools/features, or UPDATE_REQUIRED status. It does not mention when not to use the tool or point to alternatives such as check_updates first, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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