update_runtimes

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

Although there are no annotations, the description details crucial behavioral aspects: the dry-run semantics that minimize changes on disk, the network usage on both dry-run and apply paths, the sudo/gating behavior for apt, and the `elevated` flag per entry. This far exceeds typical disclosure and provides agent-critical safety information.

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 with clear sections separated by blank lines, starting with a bold SAFE BY DEFAULT callout, then the privileges and network details. It is slightly verbose with repeated parenthetical lists and explanations, but each sentence adds necessary context; could be tightened without losing value.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple package managers, privileged operations, conditional gating) and the absence of annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: the dry-run safety, the exact commands, the gating mechanism, the network implications, and the per-entry flags. With no output schema, it also explains what entries report (ok: false, elevated flag) but could further specify the success outcome structure, yet this is sufficient.

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 three parameters with defaults but no descriptions; the tool description compensates by explaining `apply` (dry run vs. apply) and `languages` (comma-separated subset, empty = all). However, `timeout` is not discussed beyond its existence, though its default (600s) and type (integer) are implicitly clear, so the compensation is strong but not complete.

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 updates language runtimes, enumerates the specific commands that would be executed, and clarifies the dry-run versus apply behavior. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like runtimes_status or list_languages by focusing on updates, and from other tools via the unique verb 'update'.

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 explicit guidance on when to pass apply=False as a safe dry run and when to pass apply=True to actually execute changes, including the privileged apt-get path with its gating requirement. It also explains the `languages` parameter for subsetting, though it doesn't mention alternatives among siblings, but the distinctions are clear enough given the tool's purpose.

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