update_swift_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action of updating dependencies, but it does not mention side effects such as modifying Package.resolved, requiring network access, or the potential for breaking changes. This is a significant gap for a mutation-like tool.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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?

The description is minimal and lacks important context for safe usage: it does not mention prerequisites (e.g., an active Swift package), effects on project files, or the scope of updates (all vs. specific package). Since there is no output schema or annotations, the agent receives insufficient context for a dependency-updating tool.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., specificPackage, branch/version/revision conditions). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action (updates), the resource (dependencies of your Swift project), and the method (using Swift Package Manager). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pod_update, show_swift_dependencies, and init_swift_package.

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 implies the tool is used to update dependencies, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions (e.g., targeted updates via specificPackage or using pod_update for CocoaPods). The usage context is implied but not elaborated.

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