Upgrade a specific Arduino library by name, or omit the name to update all installed libraries through arduino-cli.
Upgrade libraries. Omit name to upgrade all.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Library to upgrade. Omit for all. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description does not contradict them. It adds the useful behavioral detail that omitting name upgrades all libraries, but it does not disclose side effects like version replacement or dependency changes.
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 very brief and front-loaded: two short sentences convey the action and the key scope rule. It is appropriately sized for a tool with one optional parameter, though it sacrifices some contextual richness 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?
For a low-complexity tool with one optional parameter, complete schema coverage, and annotations covering idempotency and destructiveness, the description is largely sufficient. It lacks only explicit routing guidance relative to sibling tools and any note about the result of an upgrade.
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?
The single parameter 'name' has 100% schema description coverage, and the description merely restates the same 'Omit for all' guidance. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a specific action ('Upgrade') and resource ('libraries'), and the additional 'Omit name to upgrade all' clarifies scope. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like lib-install or core-upgrade because the resource and action are 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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use lib-upgrade versus alternatives such as lib-install or core-upgrade. The only usage hint, 'Omit name to upgrade all,' addresses an invocation detail rather than selecting among sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.