Queue MagicSword agent upgrades

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description meaningfully extends them with the mandatory preview-then-confirm cycle and the required endpoints:write permission. It stops short of saying what the upgrade does to affected hosts (agent restart/interruption) or how duplicate queues are avoided across reruns.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the preview/confirm contract is front-loaded after the target scope. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

Covers scope, workflow, and authorization for a zero-required-parameter, eight-parameter tool with no output schema; annotations carry the safety profile. Missing only the interaction rules between filters (e.g., platform combined with hostname_pattern) and what the preview returns.

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 100%, so every parameter including confirm, limit, and hostname_pattern is already documented in the schema. The prose only restates the selection modes at a high level and adds no format or precedence detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb pair ('previews or queues agent upgrades') and enumerates the four target-selection modes, so an agent immediately knows what the tool acts on. No sibling in the list overlaps this upgrade action, so no rival needed to be named.

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 first call previews the request; rerun with confirm=true after human approval' is an explicit, actionable invocation workflow with a stated gating condition. It doesn't discuss alternatives, but no sibling tool offers a competing path to queueing upgrades.

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