apt_upgrade

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

The description clearly warns 'RENDSZERSZINTU valtoztatas - megerositest ker' (system-level change - confirmation requested), adding a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the annotations. It also discloses that the return string includes the upgrade output and final state verification. This is consistent with destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, with no contradiction.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the main action and system-level warning appear first, followed by prerequisite recommendations and a short Args/Returns section. It is concise with no unnecessary filler, though the Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema.

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 destructive system-level tool, the description provides essential context: the action, the confirmation requirement, recommended preconditions, and the return value. It does not elaborate on remote host behavior or failure modes, but the schema covers host semantics and an output schema is present, so the description is adequately complete.

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?

With the context signal showing 0% schema description coverage, the description was expected to compensate, but the Args section only lists field names and types: 'full (bool), host, response_format.' It does not explain what these parameters do or their implications, leaving the agent to discover that meaning in the nested schema definitions. Some value is added by mapping the fields, but semantics are almost entirely absent from the description.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'A telepitett csomagok frissitese' (upgrade installed packages). It implicitly distinguishes itself from apt_update/apt_list_upgradable by recommending those as prior steps, and from apt_install/apt_remove by focusing on upgrading existing packages. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling or draw a direct contrast, leaving some room for interpretation.

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 explicitly recommends running 'apt_update' and 'apt_list_upgradable' before this tool so the agent can inspect what will change, giving clear sequential context. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions or mention alternatives like apt_install or apt_remove, but the suggested prerequisite workflow is strong enough guidance.

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