huddo_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the mutation (install), the safety step (signature verification), a required follow-up action (restart the MCP client), and the divergent behavior for npm/npx installs. It omits failure modes and rollback behavior, keeping it just short of exhaustive.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the caveats (npm/npx, check mode) follow. Slightly dense but every clause carries operational information.

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 self-update tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what triggers an install, the verification step, and the post-install restart. Nothing critical is missing, though return-value expectations in check mode are left implicit.

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 single `check` parameter is already fully documented. The description's 'check=true only reports' reinforces but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: checking for a newer Huddo CLI/MCP release and installing it. The resource ('Huddo CLI/MCP release') is clearly distinct from sibling tools like huddo_update_name and huddo_update_avatar, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Gives concrete applicability conditions: only installs when running from a downloaded huddo.mjs, and npm/npx installs should use huddoai@latest instead. It also explains check=true as a report-only mode. Clear context, though it doesn't explicitly frame when a user should invoke this versus manually updating.

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