server_upgrade

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It mentions automatic configuration backup and restoration, hinting at safety, but does not disclose potential downtime, restart behavior, or failure handling. More detail would be beneficial for a server upgrade operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 complexity of a server upgrade, the description provides key context (installation method, config backup). The existence of an output schema likely covers return values, so the description is largely complete. However, it could mention prerequisites like stopping the server or expected duration.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema fully covers parameters. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. Baseline 5 for 0 parameters.

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 tool upgrades the MCP server, specifies the installation context (uvx), and highlights a key feature (automatic configuration backup and restoration). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools, none of which perform an 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?

The description indicates when to use the tool ('when installed via uvx'), providing clear context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the purpose is sufficiently narrow and there is no sibling tool for upgrading, so the guidance is adequate.

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