update_deps

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details re-reading lockfiles, updating stored deps, and vulnerability history handling (keep, flag, resolve). Fully transparent within its scope.

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?

Three sentences plus an Args list. No waste. First sentence states purpose, second expands behavior, third lists parameters. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 purpose, behavior, and parameters. Missing explicit mention of prerequisites (e.g., project must be monitored). Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Slight gap, but acceptable.

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 has 0% description coverage; description adds explicit meanings for both parameters: project_id is 'The project ID to update' and project_path is 'Path to the project root. Defaults to current directory.' This adds significant value.

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?

Clear verb ('update') and resource ('dependency snapshot'). Specifies context 'after upgrading packages', distinguishing from siblings like check_alerts or scan_lockfile.

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?

States when to use ('after upgrading packages'), but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

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