Update installed Ply components

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

Goes well past the destructiveHint=true annotation by explaining exactly what gets replaced (untouched files take upstream), what stays (conflicts remain local, non-zero exit unless force or merge), what is skipped (local-only edits unless overwriteLocal), and that the host confirms before destructive flags fire. This is substantial behavioral context an agent could not infer from annotations.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then layers conditions in short clauses; every sentence carries information. It is telegraphic to the point of being terse, which slightly raises parsing effort for a first-time reader.

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 destructive, multi-flag mutation tool this covers the essentials: precedence rules, exit behavior, skip rules, confirmation requirements, and the shape of structuredContent.files. A separate output schema exists, and the description's one-line note about per-file results is enough to orient the agent.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds value by describing flag precedence (force wins over merge) and the interactive confirmation behavior around force and overwriteLocal. It stops short of restating names/cwd semantics, but those are already well documented in the schema.

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 — apply upstream changes to tracked Ply component copies — and ties it to the underlying CLI command, so there is no ambiguity about what it does. It also contrasts itself with the read-only sibling in the same breath.

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?

Explicitly names diff_components as the non-writing alternative that reports the same drift, which lets an agent route between 'inspect' and 'apply' without reading either schema. The force/merge/overwriteLocal clauses further pin down when each mode is appropriate.

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