bitpull_check_updates

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

Annotations supply only destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and it does disclose the key side effect: the app restarts during install. However, it says nothing about behavior when no update is available, whether existing data or in-flight work survives the restart, or whether user confirmation is needed before forcibly restarting the app.

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?

A single sentence states the action and parenthetically front-loads the disruptive consequence. Nothing is padded and the most decision-relevant fact, the restart, is placed at the end where it is still immediately visible.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema mutation, action plus side effect is nearly enough. What is missing is the outcome of the call, specifically what happens if the app is already up to date and what the tool returns to the agent.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter discussion, matching the 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 uses a specific verb chain (check for a newer version, install it) against a clear resource (the app itself), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling bitpull_updates, which by name alone suggests an overlapping update surface, leaving mild ambiguity for selection.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of when not to use it. The phrase 'install it now' implies immediate effect, and the restart acts as a soft caution, but the agent receives no help choosing between this tool and the similarly named bitpull_updates.

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