Bump the version

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

destructiveHint=false is already declared in annotations, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that no commit is made, but says nothing about which manifest file is edited, what happens if the CHANGELOG is missing, or whether the change is reversible.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the key constraint front-loaded. Nothing redundant.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps: target manifest file, CHANGELOG creation/formatting behavior on failure, and whether notes is required for a meaningful entry.

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 67%: dir and notes are documented in the schema, while level has only its enum/default. The description restates the patch/minor/major options, which reinforces level but adds no new semantics beyond the schema.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Bump the manifest version') plus the two side effects (CHANGELOG entry, no commit). It does not name or differentiate from near siblings like git_commit or tag_and_release, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied — you bump before committing or releasing — but nothing states when to use this versus git_commit or tag_and_release, nor any prerequisites (clean tree, existing manifest, existing CHANGELOG). 'Does not commit' hints at sequencing without spelling it out.

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