update_local_mcp

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that this is a non-mutating check operation (updating availability + download status), which corrects the mutation-implying name. But it does not describe the shape of the result, whether it requires network/credentials, or what should happen next.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the core behavior is front-loaded. Appropriately sized for a simple zero-arg check.

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 zero-param tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable sense of the return (update available? already downloaded?) but omits next-step routing to lmcp_install_upgrade and any environment/auth context. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. Baseline of 4 applies; no additional parameter meaning is needed or expected.

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 ('Checks whether') and resource (LMCP update availability and download status). It importantly corrects the potentially misleading name 'update_local_mcp' by clarifying this is a check, not an install. However, it does not distinguish itself from related siblings like lmcp_upgrade_diagnostics or lmcp_state.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus lmcp_upgrade_diagnostics, lmcp_state, lmcp_doctor, or lmcp_install_upgrade, nor any stated prerequisites or follow-up actions. The agent is left to infer context entirely.

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