dep_update_plan

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

?ith no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it doesn't disclose whether the tool executes updates, runs tests, writes files, or requires an existing lockfile. The words 'safe' and 'plan' hint at non-destructive behavior without confirming it or describing what the plan contains beyond test steps.

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?

A single 10-word sentence, front-loaded with the verb, with every word earning its place. No redundancy, no boilerplate, 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 tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves critical gaps: what the plan looks like (text, markdown, file write?), what 'safe' means operationally, and how it differs from dep_outdated/dep_audit. An agent cannot reliably predict the response format or side-effcts from this description alone.

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%: api_key has no description and scope's description ('Update scope') is tautological. The tool description adds zero parameter context — it never explains why api_key is needed, whether it's optional, or how scope affects the resulting plan.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Generate') with a clear resource ('dependency update plan') and distinguishing qualifiers ('safe,' 'test verification steps') that separate it from dep_outdated and dep_audit. However, it never names or contrasts sibling tools, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings like dep_outdated, dep_audit, or dep_license_check. The only implied context is 'you want a plan,' which is too weak given a cluster of near-sibling dependency tools, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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