axint.upgrade

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it details destructive effects (package installs, Xcode wiring refresh, writing .axint/upgrade) and mentions npm network usage. It confirms preservation of the current agent thread, which annotations alone do not provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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 reasonably concise, with front-loaded main action and usage. However, it includes some fragmentation (e.g., '.axint/upgrade/latest.*...') and could be slightly tighter. Still, every sentence 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?

Given an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, usage, effects, and mentions written reports. It lacks explicit error handling or prerequisites, but with good annotations and full schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as mentioning output formats and report writing, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 checks the latest Axint package and optionally applies upgrades, preserving the current agent thread. It specifies when to use (stale server from axint.status) and disambiguates from app dependency upgrades, distinguishing it from sibling tools.

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 explicitly provides a usage condition: 'call when axint.status shows a stale server' and a negative condition: 'not for app dependency upgrades'. This gives clear guidance on when to invoke the tool versus other tools, though it does not name specific sibling alternatives.

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