apply_security_upgrades

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior. The description adds that a dry run occurs first, and that the wait parameter controls polling, but fails to mention the need for confirm_token to actually apply changes, leaving a gap in understanding the full flow.

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 two sentences, no redundancy, and the key action is front-loaded. It could be more structured but achieves brevity.

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 tool's destructive nature and multiple parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the dry run output, the role of confirm_token, or the return behavior, forcing reliance on an output schema that is not described.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only explains the wait parameter. The required query, wait_timeout, and confirm_token parameters are not addressed, leaving agents to infer their meaning from the schema alone.

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 applies pending security upgrades to matched machines, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'upgrade_packages' by focusing on security upgrades.

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 advises a dry run first and mentions the wait parameter for polling, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternatives. It lacks explanation of the confirmation token flow.

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