Update Dependencies

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

The annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the safety implications of each level: 'patch' is safest, 'latest' includes major breaking changes. This goes beyond the structured annotations and helps the agent understand the mutation's impact.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with a clear purpose statement, then lists the three safety levels in a scannable format, followed by concrete examples. Every sentence contributes useful information, with no fluff or redundant repetition of the tool name or 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 mutation tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it covers the project, level, packages, and dry-run via examples and safety level explanations. It does not describe return values or error scenarios, but given the absence of an output schema and the relative simplicity of the tool, it is reasonably complete. The only minor gap is lack of distinction from depsonar_update_all.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description enhances understanding by providing natural-language examples that map to parameters (project, packages, level), such as 'Update svelte in Showly to latest', which illustrates how the level and package parameters are used together. This adds value beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions.

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 tool's function: 'Update dependencies for a project' and specifies it works with any supported language. It is specific about the verb and resource, but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like depsonar_update_all, which likely handles bulk updates. Thus it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides usage context through the three safety levels (patch, minor, latest) and examples, implying when each level is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like depsonar_update_all, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. Guidance is present but primarily implied.

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