bouncer_check_upgrade

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavioral value by promising a "verdict" and enumerating the change categories surfaced (publisher, provenance, install scripts, dependencies) — exactly the kind of context an agent needs before a version bump.

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 sentences, both earning their place: the first gives the call trigger, the second the return content. The most actionable instruction (when to call) is front-loaded with no preamble.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does describe the result (verdict + changed fields). It leaves the verdict's possible values or thresholds undefined, which is a modest gap for a gate-style tool but not a fatal one.

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 description coverage is 100% and every parameter (name, from, to) is documented in the schema itself. The description restates the from→to relationship but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (check) and a specific resource (a dependency upgrade from one version to another), and the from→to framing distinguishes it from sibling bouncer_check_package, which presumably inspects a single version. It never names the siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

"Call this before bumping a dependency from one version to another" gives an explicit trigger point (pre-upgrade gate), which is clear operational guidance. It does not say when NOT to use it or name alternatives such as bouncer_safe_version or bouncer_check_package, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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