spine_upgrade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the migration mappings and says the tool fixes an existing file, but it does not state whether the operation modifies in place, whether it is reversible, whether a backup is needed, or what side effects occur.

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 and front-loaded with the main action: 'Fix a document written by spine-mcp 0.1'. The field mapping list is dense but each item is substantive, and the final sentence efficiently states when to use it.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description leaves the sole 'project' parameter undocumented and omits important behavioral details such as in-place mutation and reversibility, which matter for a migration/fix operation.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the single required parameter, 'project'. The description never explains whether 'project' is a file path, project name, or identifier, and instead refers generically to a 'document' or 'file', leaving the parameter ambiguous.

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: it fixes/upgrades a document written by spine-mcp 0.1, and it lists the exact legacy-to-Spine-4.x field transformations. It also distinguishes this migration tool from normal editing tools by noting that every editing tool applies these upgrades automatically.

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 gives clear usage context: use this to fix a file as is, because editing tools already perform the upgrade automatically. It does not explicitly name all sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with editing tools is enough to guide selection.

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