Update the MiSTer

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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description discloses duration (several minutes), a possible reboot at the end, the game-running refusal, and the hourly rate limit. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking a destructive action.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then duration/reboot, then refusal and rate-limit. Every sentence contributes distinct, useful information.

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 an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description still adds the operational context (duration, reboot, refusal, rate limit) that neither structured field provides. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented in the input schema, including the 'Must be true' constraint on confirm and the no-default note on host. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 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 names a specific operation ('Start Update All') on a specific resource (a MiSTer's own screen) and enumerates what gets updated (cores, Main, Linux). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like set_ini or launch.

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?

It gives clear context for when this runs (an Update All) and explicit preconditions for refusal (a game running) and a rate limit (once an hour per MiSTer). It doesn't name an alternative tool, but the sibling set makes the choice obvious.

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