upgrade

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions that nothing is sent without an email, but fails to explain what happens when an email is provided (e.g., whether the account is upgraded, a trial key is returned, or any side effects occur). It does not describe the return value, permissions needed, or reversibility.

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 short (two sentences) and includes only relevant information, but the first sentence about 'what ArkHive v2 adds' is tangential and not action-oriented. The key trial-key detail is second, and the overall structure could be more direct for an agent 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is still incomplete. An agent cannot infer the expected output (e.g., a key, a confirmation), the actual side effects (upgrade or trial activation), or the criteria for success. Given the absence of annotations, the description leaves critical gaps.

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 schema defines a single optional email with no description and 0% coverage. The description does add meaning by indicating the email is used to receive a trial key, which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, it lacks specifics like format, validation, or what happens with an invalid email.

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 opens with 'What ArkHive v2 (paid) adds' which describes features rather than a specific action. It then mentions 'if you give your email, a free 14-day v2 trial key', implying the tool issues a trial key, but the exact operation (e.g., 'upgrade account' or 'request trial key') is never stated. The purpose is vague and not a clear verb+resource.

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?

It states a prerequisite ('Opt-in only: nothing is sent unless you provide an email'), but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like birth, verify, or request_action. No alternatives are mentioned, and the conditions for calling the tool are only partially implied.

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