upgrade

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds substantial value on top: it discloses concretely which fields are rewritten, that the `# Citations` list is removed after conversion, and the edge case where missing git history leaves `by` unset and reports it in needs_by. It stops short of saying whether a backup is taken or what a repeat run on an already-upgraded bundle does.

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?

It is a single dense paragraph that opens with a bare spec reference ('OKF v0.1 to v0.2 (§13)') rather than a plain statement of what the tool does, then packs internal field names like needs_by and basis: git-history into the same breath. Every element is relevant, but readability suffers without a leading one-line summary.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and zero schema descriptions, the definition covers the transformation rules and the dry-run mechanism but omits the working-target parameter, backup/rollback behavior, and how the resulting report (needs_by) is surfaced. Adequate, but an agent still has open questions before invoking it.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains `apply` well ('apply=False shows the diff', implying true performs the write), but never mentions `bundle` at all, leaving the most essential argument — which bundle gets upgraded — undocumented in both schema and description.

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 names a specific transformation (OKF bundle v0.1 to v0.2) and enumerates exactly what changes: timestamp field rewriting, citations list to sources, and okf_version in the root index.md. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling `migrate` tool, which an agent could easily confuse with a format-version upgrade.

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: 'apply=False shows the diff' signals a dry-run-first pattern, but there is no explicit statement of when to run this versus `migrate`, `fix`, or `lint`, nor any precondition (e.g., that the bundle must currently be at v0.1).

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