build_upgrade_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does substantial work: it defines what qualifies as a blocker, declares check_outdated_packages and vendor/-scope scan_module_risk findings as informational-only, and warns that ready=true ignores the 'unverified' list. It does not state whether the tool mutates anything or any runtime/performance expectations for running five sub-checks, leaving modest gaps.

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?

Purpose and the composed tool list are front-loaded, and the sentences are dense with decision-relevant content rather than filler. It is on the long side and re-explains return-value semantics the output schema likely already covers, which costs a point.

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 multi-tool orchestrator this covers the essential surface: inputs, what is combined, blocker vs informational semantics, and the ready/unverified caveat. Since an output schema exists, the description needn't detail return shape, and the remaining omission (side-effect/performance profile against a local filesystem path) is minor.

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% for all three required parameters, so the schema already documents path, target_php and target_magento with format examples. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 and resource ("Builds an upgrade plan") and immediately scopes it to a Magento project against target PHP/Magento versions. It also names the exact siblings it composes (check_updates, scan_module_risk, audit_security, check_outdated_packages, fetch_release_notes), which cleanly distinguishes this aggregator from the individual check tools.

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 composition list makes clear that this is the orchestration entry point rather than a call to each sibling individually, and it explains how to interpret output signals that select routes (blockers vs informational). It does not, however, explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g. when you only need one check), so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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