update_local_mcp

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states that the tool installs updates, indicating a modifying operation, but provides no details on permissions, side effects, or whether it is safe to run. The minimal description leaves the agent uninformed about potential impacts.

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 with five words, achieving excellent conciseness. However, it is so brief that it may sacrifice informativeness, which slightly reduces the score.

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 complexity of an update operation (potential for system changes), the description is insufficient. It does not explain the outcome, error conditions, or when the update might fail. For a 0-param tool, it still lacks completeness.

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 parameters, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not need to explain parameters, so this dimension is neutral. The description adds no additional semantic value 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 'Checks for and installs LMCP updates' clearly identifies the tool's action (checking and installing) and target (LMCP updates). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'lmcp_state' and 'lmcp_welcome' by focusing on the update process.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool, such as prerequisites (e.g., check lmcp_state first) or alternatives. The description simply states the action without context.

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