run_update

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds the behavioral requirement of confirmation. However, it does not disclose potential side effects such as system reboot, service interruptions, or whether the update is reversible.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It conveys the action and the one critical behavioral constraint in a compact form.

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 simple tool with one boolean parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action and confirmation requirement. It could be more complete by referencing 'check_updates' as a precondition or noting post-update implications, but it is sufficient for basic correct invocation.

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 schema provides no description for the single 'confirm' parameter, leaving its purpose unclear. The description's phrase 'requires confirmation' explains that the boolean parameter is the confirmation gate, adding essential meaning that the schema lacks.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run') and a clear resource ('a full system update'), making the tool's action unambiguous. It also naturally differentiates from the sibling 'check_updates', which only checks for updates rather than executing them.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'check_updates'. It only mentions that confirmation is required, but does not state whether one should check updates first or under what conditions updating is appropriate.

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