Update All Projects

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

Beyond the annotations (which already indicate a mutating, non-destructive tool), the description adds the critical default behavior: 'Defaults to dry_run=true (safe preview)'. This is valuable context not present in structured fields. However, it does not discuss reversibility or post-update changes.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and uses three clear examples to illustrate usage. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should clarify expected outcomes. It covers the default dry-run, filtering, and examples, but does not explain return values, behavior when no projects match, or what happens when changes are applied. Given the tool's batch scope, more completeness would be helpful.

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 description mentions filtering by framework or language, which aligns with the schema descriptions for those params. Schema coverage is 60%, leaving 'level' and 'directory' unexplained. The examples imply 'apply changes' means dry_run=false, but this mapping is not explicit.

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 'Batch update across all projects' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'depsonar_update' (single project update) by emphasizing the batch scope. Examples reinforce the purpose.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (updating all projects) and shows filtering by framework/language. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the name and sibling tools imply that 'depsonar_update' is for single-project updates.

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