electron_configure_auto_update

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

Description claims it 'produces' code, implying state mutation (generating/modifying files), but annotations set readOnlyHint=true, indicating no modification. This is a direct contradiction. Also fails to disclose potential side effects like overwriting existing files.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded, no redundant information. Every part adds 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?

Description explains output (code for main process, UI, signing), compensating for lack of output schema. However, contradiction reduces completeness score.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so description adds no additional meaning beyond parameter descriptions. Mentions provider types in summary but does not elaborate on each parameter beyond what schema already provides.

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?

Clearly states it generates auto-update configuration using electron-updater, specifying what it produces (main process setup, event handling, UI code, signing requirements) and supported providers. Distinct from sibling tools focused on auditing, migration, or scaffolding.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but sibling tools are all different, so context is implicitly clear. Lacks prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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