ubuntu_update_packages

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update system packages' implies a system modification, but the description doesn't disclose that this requires elevated privileges (sudo), may require user confirmation, could break dependencies, or has potential side effects. It mentions none of the behavioral traits that would help an agent understand the operation's impact.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with comprehensive schema documentation. Every word earns its place by clearly stating the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 system modification tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails (apt update vs apt upgrade), doesn't mention typical use cases, doesn't warn about potential system impacts, and provides no information about return values or error conditions. The agent would need to infer too much from the sparse description.

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 the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain the relationship between parameters (e.g., how securityOnly interacts with upgrade) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Update system packages on Ubuntu' clearly states the action (update) and resource (system packages on Ubuntu). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ubuntu_nginx_control or ubuntu_ufw_firewall by focusing on package management rather than service control or firewall configuration. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from generic ssh_exec which could also run update commands.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing an active SSH connection, nor does it explain when to use this specialized tool versus the more general ssh_exec tool. There's no context about typical update scenarios or limitations.

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