lmcp_install_upgrade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It notes the tool self-upgrades LMCP and does not edit user files, but omits potential side effects such as app restarts, network requirements, or permission needs—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 sentence that front-loads the core action and adds a clarifying parenthetical. Every word contributes, with no fluff or repetition.

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 parameterless tool, the description covers the main behavior and one exclusion. However, without annotations, it does not fully disclose operational consequences (e.g., whether confirmation is required or what happens if no update exists), making it only moderately 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?

The input schema has no properties, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description appropriately does not discuss parameters, and the baseline score of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter 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 clearly states 'Checks for and installs a newer LMCP version' with a specific verb and resource. The parenthetical 'a self-upgrade of the LMCP app itself' distinguishes it from sibling tools like lmcp_upgrade_diagnostics and clarifies it is not a data-editing tool.

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 when to use the tool (to check for and install LMCP updates) and gives an exclusion with 'not editing any of your...' However, it does not name an alternative tool for editing, so guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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