opnsense_firmware_upgrade

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

The description discloses that the operation is destructive, requires confirmation, is long-running, and typically needs a reboot. However, it lacks details on reversibility, failure handling, or side effects beyond what is mentioned. With no annotations, more context could be provided.

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 with four sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, duration/polling, reboot necessity, and destructiveness. No unnecessary words or 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?

For a complex destructive tool, the description covers the trigger, relationship to status, polling, reboot, and confirmation. However, it could be more complete by mentioning prerequisites (e.g., check status first) or error scenarios. Still, it provides a solid understanding for an agent.

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 100% coverage for the single boolean parameter 'confirm'. The description adds the context of explicit confirmation and destructiveness, but the schema already conveys the requirement. The description does not significantly enhance 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 triggers an OPNsense system upgrade, specifies it is based on status output, and distinguishes between minor packages and major-series jumps. It differentiates from siblings like opnsense_firmware_check and opnsense_firmware_upgrade_status.

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 clear context on when to use (based on status reports) and notes it is long-running with a polling alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives beyond the polling tool.

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