sassy_update_changelog

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description adds concrete behavioral details: network access requirement, error behavior when tag not found, default to latest release, and the specific fields returned. This is substantial and directly aids correct invocation.

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 yet information-dense, starting with the core purpose and then layering in usage guidance and exclusions. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler or 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 the tool's simplicity (single optional param, no output schema), the description covers all required invocation details: output format, default behavior, error case, network dependency, and when to use it relative to siblings. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and there is only one optional parameter. The description fully compensates by explaining that 'tag' is optional, defaults to latest release, and returns an error if not found. This is exactly the semantic information needed beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Returns') and resource ('release notes for one release') and explicitly defines the output shape (tag, release name, published_at, notes body, URL). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming what it does not do (checking if behind) and listing alternative tools for related tasks.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use to see what changed before deciding to upgrade') and when not, with clear alternatives: 'for the downloadable assets of that release use sassy_update_list' and 'to stage the download use sassy_update_apply' and 'Does not check whether you are behind; for that use sassy_update_check.' No ambiguity.

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