tv_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool performs a git operation, conditionally runs npm ci, has safety guardrails, and requires a restart after successful updates. This is highly transparent for a mutating maintenance tool.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose and mechanism, safety conditions, and post-condition. The primary action is front-loaded and there is no redundant or filler text.

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?

The description covers the call's side effects, preconditions, and post-conditions well, including the critical restart requirement. The only notable gaps are return/error behavior and potential server downtime during the update, but the restart warning mitigates the latter. For a zero-argument maintenance tool, this is quite complete.

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 input schema has zero properties and the tool takes no parameters, so the schema is trivially 100% described. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist; per the zero-parameter baseline, a score of 4 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Update this MCP server to the latest version' — clear and unambiguous. It then details the exact mechanism (git fast-forward of origin/main + npm ci), which further distinguishes it from the many sibling tv_* tools like tv_health_check or tv_launch. No other tool in the sibling list performs a self-update, so it is easily differentiated.

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?

Clearly implies when to use the tool (to update the MCP server) and provides explicit refusal conditions: non-git installs, dirty working trees, non-main branches, or diverged history. It also warns that a restart is required after success. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools, though none exist in the sibling list, so the guidance is mostly implicit rather than explicit.

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