update_deps

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains re-reading lockfiles, updating the stored list, and detailed vulnerability history handling. Missing details on potential side effects or prerequisites, but sufficiently transparent.

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 concise, well-structured with a summary, behavioral details, and parameter list. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 existence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core behavior and vulnerability handling, though it omits prerequisites like project being monitored or lockfile existence. Still fairly 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, requiring description to compensate. The Args section provides basic context for project_id and project_path, but does not elaborate on valid values or constraints, adding minimal meaning beyond the schema.

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 it updates a dependency snapshot after upgrading packages, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like scan_lockfile or check_alerts by focusing on post-upgrade updates.

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?

It explicitly states 'after upgrading packages' as the context for use, providing clear guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like scan_lockfile for initial scanning.

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