core-upgrade

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

Annotations already declare the key traits: not read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds the bulk scope behavior (omitting coreId upgrades everything), which is useful operational context, but says nothing about network access, failure behavior on individual cores, or what the response contains.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the primary action comes first and the conditional modifier second.

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 single-optional-parameter tool whose annotations cover the safety profile and with no output schema to explain, the description is nearly sufficient. Only minor gaps remain around network/prerequisite expectations for a mutation operation.

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 schema already documents coreId including the omit-for-all semantics and an example value. The description merely restates that same rule without adding format or edge-case detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (installed cores), which implicitly distinguishes it from the similarly named lib-upgrade sibling by resource type. It is clear enough to select correctly, though it never names or contrasts the alternative to remove ambiguity.

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?

"Omit coreId to upgrade all" gives conditional behavior for the two modes but frames it as parameter usage rather than when-to-use guidance. It never says when to prefer this over core-install or lib-upgrade, so usage must be inferred from context.

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