upgrade

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the upgrade process: building, distributing, checksum-verfying, atomic swap, cycling, and verification. It also mentions policy gating and audit logging. Misses details on node downtime or state during upgrade.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, efficient and well-structured. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given complexity (3 params, 0% schema coverage, no annotations) and presence of output schema, the description covers the process, dry-run vs confirm, and policy constraints. It does not explain the output but that's not required per rules. Differentiating from 'plan_node_upgrade' would improve completeness.

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. It adds meaning for 'confirm' (executes vs dry-run) and 'target_version' (the version to upgrade to), but does not explain the 'name' parameter (implicitly the node identifier). Partial coverage.

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 tool upgrades a node to a target version, detailing steps like building, distributing, and swapping. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'plan_node_upgrade', which might be a planning alternative.

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 explains the dry-run default and execution with confirm=true, implying when to use it. But it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or comparisons to alternatives like 'plan_node_upgrade'.

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