upgrade_project_mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions 'dry-run, preview, and rollback-safe patching' which gives some behavioral context about safety features, but doesn't disclose critical details like required permissions, whether this is a destructive operation, rate limits, or what happens to existing artifacts. For a complex upgrade tool with 15 parameters, this is insufficient.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes meaning, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more detail given the tool's complexity.

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 upgrade tool with 15 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. While an output schema exists (which helps with return values), the description doesn't provide enough context about the tool's behavior, parameter usage, or relationship to sibling tools to enable effective agent selection and invocation.

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 for 15 parameters, the description must compensate but provides no parameter information whatsoever. It doesn't explain what any of the 15 parameters mean, their relationships, or how they affect the upgrade process. The description mentions general capabilities ('dry-run, preview') but doesn't map them to specific parameters.

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 verb ('upgrade') and resource ('MCP-managed project artifacts') with specific scope ('to the latest layout version'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'apply_project_patch' or 'rollback_project_patch', but the focus on 'layout version' provides some distinction.

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 mentions 'dry-run, preview, and rollback-safe patching' which implies usage contexts, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apply_project_patch' or 'ensure_project_mcp_current'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools are stated.

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