update_updater_apply

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context by explaining the scheduling semantics of 'tonight' and the state-change effect of 'skip'. The annotations already indicate this is a mutating, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the description does not need to repeat that, but it also does not disclose potential side effects such as service restarts or whether the update actually installs immediately when tonight is false.

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 compact and front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by a clean Args section. The HTTP endpoint is slightly redundant with the tool name but not harmful. Every sentence contributes useful 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 low-complexity tool with two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the key decision points an agent needs: when the update runs and how to skip a version. It does not explain preconditions like whether an update must first be found or downloaded, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by clearly explaining both parameters. 'tonight' is distinguished between deferred and immediate execution, and 'skip' is tied to a specific state change on the Release entry. This is more informative than the bare schema types.

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 states the operation clearly as 'Applying updates' with the explicit endpoint 'PUT /updater/apply'. This makes the primary purpose understandable, though it does not distinguish itself from its sibling update_updater_check or explain what 'apply' means in the broader update workflow.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_updater_check or list_updater_status. It only explains parameter effects, not the conditions under which applying an update is appropriate or what prerequisites must exist first.

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