Update the panel itself

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotency, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new information by disclosing the environment-variable gate that will cause refusal. It stops short of describing downtime, rollback, or what an update disrupts on the running panel.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action stated first and the blocking precondition second. Nothing to trim.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies both the action and the authorization prerequisite. It could go further on impact/warnings, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ("Set true to actually install the update"), so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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 ("Install a panel update") that is clearly distinct from the read-only sibling panel_check_update and consistent with the danger_ prefix convention. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling boundary, but the action is unambiguous.

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 description states a hard precondition (AAPANEL_ALLOW_DANGEROUS must be set), which is useful gating context, but gives no explicit guidance on when to invoke this versus checking first with panel_check_update or how to decide whether a panel update is appropriate.

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