sassy_update_apply

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the non-execution behavior, the return values, and the build-specific restriction. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting existing staging files or requiring network access, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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 three sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second clarifies a critical non-behavior, and the third gives a conditional context. Each sentence contributes valuable information with no repetition.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (three parameters, no output schema), the description provides essential information about the tool's purpose, return value, and limitations. The main gap is parameter documentation, but the tool's behavior is simple enough that the description gives adequate context for an agent to decide whether to use it.

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 provides three parameters with no descriptions (0% schema coverage), and the description does not mention any parameter names or their roles. The parameter names like asset_name and dest_dir are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not clarify how they map to the 'staging' behavior or what 'tag' means in this context.

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 a specific action: 'Download an asset to staging' and immediately states the return value ('path + a run command'). It distinguishes itself from sibling update tools by explicitly noting it does NOT execute the installer, which is critical for the 'apply' naming.

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 clearly states when to use this tool: to stage an update for manual execution. It also provides an exclusion: 'Disabled in packaged/frozen builds' and an alternative: 'upgrade by installing a new release artifact instead.' This gives the agent actionable guidance for choosing this tool vs. alternatives.

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