mcp_update_theme

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

The description lacks details about behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. It does not disclose if the update is destructive, if the theme must be active, if a backup is made, or if specific permissions are required. With no annotations, the description leaves significant behavioral uncertainty.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it lacks structural elements like separate sections or bullet points that could improve scannability.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what the update entails (e.g., fetching from repository, installing dependencies), what success looks like, or potential failure modes. A more complete description is needed for a mutation tool.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'stylesheet', which is documented as 'Theme folder name'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (update), the resource (a single theme), and the outcome (to latest version). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like mcp_install_theme (install new) and mcp_update_all_themes (update all).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to update a single theme versus updating all themes. No prerequisites or contextual hints are given.

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