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 it does disclose real behavior: it is a mutation that re-downloads release files, reinstalls dependencies on a Pi, swaps files over WiFi on Pico/ESP32, and resets the device. It omits whether the agent must be online, expected downtime, whether settings survive, and rollback/failure behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome; the platform detail is dense but earns its place by explaining divergent mechanics. No filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should say more about the result (success/failure indication, whether the agent comes back online) and the identifier format. It is adequate for understanding what happens but thin for invoking correctly.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single required `agent` parameter is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It only backtick-references `agent` without saying whether it is a name, ID, or address, or how to obtain one (mcp_agents_list).

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 `agent` to the latest release, then restart it') and adds platform-specific mechanics. An agent can immediately tell this is not the same as mcp_agent_restart, which only restarts without changing files.

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?

The purpose implies the condition (an agent running an outdated release), but the description never says when to prefer this over mcp_agent_restart or what prerequisites must hold (reachable device, network for Pico/ESP32). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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