mcp_agent_upgrade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the script run, the re-download of release files, dependency reinstallation, and the process restart. It stops short of consequences an operator would want, such as downtime, failure behavior, or irreversibility of the in-place upgrade.

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 sentence with the action front-loaded and the parenthetical reserved for mechanism detail; no filler. Slightly dense but every clause carries information about what the call actually does.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate about what the tool does but incomplete about operational risk: nothing on downtime, what happens to the agent if the upgrade fails mid-way, or confirmation of success.

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?

There is one parameter, 'agent', with 0% schema description coverage. The description refers to 'the agent' generically but never defines what identifier or selector the value must be, so it neither compensates for the coverage gap nor fully ignores it.

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 and resource ('Upgrade the agent in place') and goes further by naming the exact mechanism (install.sh --upgrade). An agent can tell this apart from mcp_agent_restart because the upgrade step is described, though the contrast is implied rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb: you call it when you want the agent on the latest release. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g., use mcp_agent_restart for a plain restart), even though the sibling list contains a directly competing tool.

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