update_server

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does reveal two modes of behavior: Git checkout auto-updates, and wheel installation returns the procedure. However, it does not mention side effects, changes to the server, required permissions, or what happens in the Git checkout case regarding the return value.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and then provides specific behavioral details in the second sentence, making it both concise and structured.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description is mostly adequate, but it leaves important gaps. It does not clarify the return value for the Git checkout case, nor the relationship with the sibling 'check_update'. Since there is no output schema or annotations, these omissions mean the description is not fully complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. Per the baseline for no parameters, this score is appropriate; the description does not need to explain parameter details.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'サーバーを更新する' (updates the server), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling 'check_update', though the action verb 'update' vs 'check' provides implicit differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'check_update'. The description mentions conditional behavior (Git checkout auto-updates, wheel returns steps) but no context about when this tool is the right choice or when it is not.

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