Update the system (gated)

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses that the operation is long-running and gated, which is meaningful. However, it omits what the workflow actually changes (system packages, configs, whether a restart occurs) and what the return/result looks like — significant gaps for a dangerous mutation 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?

Two tight sentences with the time cost and gating requirement front-loaded. Zero wasted words and every sentence earns its place. Perfectly sized for what it does disclose.

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 heavy, gated, multi-minute mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is thin. An agent would not know the scope of the workflow, whether it is destructive/reversible, or what a successful outcome looks like. The cost and gating signals help but leave the operational envelope largely unspecified.

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 and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter surface for the description to illuminate. The description correctly adds nothing about parameters, matching the baseline for a parameterless tool.

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 and resource ('Run the full Omarchy update workflow'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling read-only tools like omarchy_version_info, health_check, and system_info that report status rather than performing updates. The purpose is unambiguous, though 'full workflow' is somewhat abstract about what exactly gets updated.

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 provides useful cost and gating context — 'can take many minutes' and 'requires enableDangerous' — which signals when it may be appropriate to invoke. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, such as checking version status first with omarchy_version_info or avoiding updates during active sessions.

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