do_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention pulling from GitHub and reinstalling, which implies network use and installation changes, but it omits side effects like service interruption, data persistence, rollback options, or the confirmation requirement. This is a meaningful gap for a tool that modifies an installation.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the mechanism follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 the existence of a similarly named sibling 'update' and the potentially disruptive nature of reinstalling software, the description lacks critical context about when to use this tool and what side effects to expect. The schema covers the confirmation flag, but not usage boundaries or behavioral caveats, leaving an agent under-informed.

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 schema description for the 'confirm' parameter is complete, covering its role as a safety guard, and schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself adds no parameter information, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Update'), the resource ('Nexus Memory'), and the method ('pulls from GitHub and reinstalls'), making the tool's function specific. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'update', which could easily be confused with this one.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update' or 'check_update'. The only implicit signal is 'to the latest version', but there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or decision criteria for an agent to route correctly.

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