system_update_directadmin

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. It only states that the update happens and that confirm is required, without disclosing that this is a potentially disruptive mutation, whether services may restart, or what happens if confirm is false. This is a significant gap for a system-level update tool.

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 short, front-loaded, and free of fluff. The Args line adds a relevant instruction, and for a one-parameter tool this level of brevity is mostly appropriate, though the missing detail keeps it from being excellent.

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 high-impact mutation tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites, side effects, or how this tool relates to system_set_update_channel and system_packages_update_run. The output schema may cover return values, but operational context is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only repeats the parameter name and says 'Required.' It does not explain what confirm means, what value should be passed, or why it is required. This also conflicts with the schema, where confirm has a default of false and is not listed as required.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Update DirectAdmin itself to the latest build on the current channel.' The word 'itself' clearly distinguishes this from package updates and other system operations, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'DirectAdmin itself' implies a contrast with sibling tools like system_packages_update_run, but no alternative is named and no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. It also references the current channel without explaining the need to check or set it first.

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