update_extension

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it states that the plan is read first, unsafe plans are refused, a checkpoint is written, and the difference is measured afterward. It also discloses the important caveat that update_available does string comparison only and therefore this tool does not decide what counts as newer.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then structured into behavioral context and Args. It is somewhat long, but the length is mostly justified by the string-comparison caveat and the need to explain non-obvious parameter matching semantics.

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 complex extension-mutation tool with no annotations, three parameters, and an output schema, the description supplies the missing precondition, safety behavior, parameter meaning, and dry-run semantics. Nothing critical for correct invocation appears absent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains that name accepts folder name, registry id, or part of either; version is the released version or "latest"; and dry_run reads the plan and stops.

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 first sentence states a precise verb and resource: moving an installed node pack to another released version, forwards or back. It explicitly distinguishes the tool from install_extension by naming the differing precondition, so an agent can separate the two without inspecting 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?

The description names install_extension as the sibling with the same machinery but a different precondition, and gives a concrete use case for downgrading after a bad update. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule or comparison with repair_extension, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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