local_ydb_upgrade_version

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

The annotations indicate destructiveHint:true, and the description expands on what destructive actions occur: it preflights, dumps, rebuilds, restores, reapplies auth, recreates extra nodes, verifies, and persists. This goes beyond the annotation by detailing the sequence of modifications, making the tool's behavior transparent.

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 long sentence that packs many steps and constraints. While it is information-dense and avoids fluff, it could be better structured (e.g., bullet points or separate sentences) for easier reading. It is not overly verbose but sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 complexity of the tool (multi-step upgrade process) and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the main steps but does not explain the return value (e.g., plan output vs. execution output). It provides enough context for usage but lacks full completeness on what the tool returns.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing examples for the 'version' parameter ('such as 26.1.1.6, 26.1, latest, or nightly') and clarifying the role of 'confirm' (plan vs. execute). This enhances understanding beyond the schema definitions.

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 action ('Upgrade a...profile to a target image tag') and identifies the specific resource (file-backed, volume-backed local-ydb profile). It also distinguishes the tool by specifying it is for 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 this tool: 'Use only for version upgrades on profiles without bindMountPath.' It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the constraint is clear. The steps described (preflight, dump, rebuild, restore, etc.) provide context on the tool's workflow.

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