local_ydb_upgrade_version

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds substantial process detail: inspection of dynamic nodes, abort on incomplete definition, preflight, dump/rebuild/restore, reapplying auth, final verification, and the partial-verification fallback. It also discloses that a verified mismatch leaves the profile unchanged. 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 compact but dense, front-loading the purpose and the key constraint before describing the process. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's behavior. It's slightly long but appropriately so for a multi-step operation with failure modes. 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?

For a destructive multi-step operation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, process steps, abort conditions, success/failure handling, and partial-verification behavior. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and understand the 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so parameter semantics are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters (e.g., it doesn't explain 'confirm' beyond the schema, or how 'profile' defaults). Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 specific verb (upgrade) and resource (profile), with a clear scope qualifier ('only for version upgrades on profiles without bindMountPath'). The description distinguishes this from sibling upgrade/destroy/restart tools by specifying exactly what it does and the condition under which it applies.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'only for version upgrades on profiles without bindMountPath'. This provides a clear selection criterion. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., 'for other operations use restart_stack') but the constraint is enough to route an agent. Could be a 5 with explicit exclusions, but the condition is solid.

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