local_ydb_upgrade_version

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

The description discloses a comprehensive list of steps (preflights, dumps, rebuilds, restores, reapply auth, recreate extra nodes, verify images, persist profile) and the need for confirmation (confirm: true). This adds significant context beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true, readOnlyHint: false), explaining the exact destructive behavior. No contradictions.

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 a single, information-dense sentence. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and constraint, but the long list of steps makes it somewhat verbose. Still, it is efficient and contains no filler.

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 (upgrade with multiple steps) and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the workflow, including the plan-only mode when confirm is false. However, it could mention what the output looks like for both plan and execution outcomes.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description merely restates that 'version' is a 'target image tag' and 'dumpName' is 'optional dump directory name', which is already in the schema. It does not add extra meaning or constraints 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?

The description clearly states the tool's specific verb and resource: 'Upgrade a file-backed, volume-backed local-ydb profile to a target image tag.' It also adds a constraint ('Use only for version upgrades on profiles without bindMountPath'), differentiating it from sibling tools like local_ydb_pull_image or local_ydb_restart_stack.

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 states when to use the tool (version upgrades on profiles without bindMountPath). It implies a plan-first, confirm-later workflow with the confirm parameter. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use it or suggest alternatives, though the sibling list provides context.

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