Install package upgrades

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does not mention destructive behavior (like overwriting existing packages), side effects on node_modules or lock files, permission requirements (e.g., write access), or what happens if installation fails (rollback?). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single short sentence that conveys the core capability without redundancy. It could be improved by front-loading the action and resource more explicitly, but it is otherwise efficient and clear.

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 has 2 parameters (one nested array with subfields), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value, error handling (e.g., version mismatch), or how failures are reported. The scope of installation (single or batch) is implied but not confirmed.

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%, so the description must compensate heavily. It only mentions 'specific package versions' and 'detected package manager', but does not explain the nested 'packages' object structure (name, version, dev flag) or the 'rootPath' parameter. The agent would need to infer usage 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's action ('install specific package versions') and resource ('package manager'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'generate_upgrade_plan' and 'validate_upgrade' by focusing on the actual installation step. A slight deduction for not explicitly naming the output or scope.

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 implies this tool is for executing the install after planning, given sibling tools like 'generate_upgrade_plan' and 'run_upgrade_pipeline', but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'apply_safe_codemods'). No exclusions or prerequisites (like having an upgrade plan) are mentioned.

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