suite_auto_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the concrete mechanisms (git pull or pip install --upgrade) and that it targets the local environment. However, it says nothing about network/auth needs, whether failures roll back, whether a restart is required afterwards, or that it mutates the local install — the 'segura' claim is an unbacked assurance.

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 front-loaded sentence naming the action, scope, and mechanism with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the parenthetical mechanism detail could be trimmed or expanded into useful behavior notes.

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 zero-param mutating action with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what it does and how, but omits outcome information (success/failure signaling, restart requirement, version state after update) that an agent would need.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond confirming no arguments are needed.

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+resource ('Ejecuta la actualización automática... de Open Legal Chile Suite') and the mechanism used. It is distinguishable from siblings like suite_verificar_actualizacion or suite_telemetria_stats, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 on when to run this versus suite_verificar_actualizacion (check first?) or under what conditions (outdated detected, offline, etc.). No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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