upgrade_ip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses idempotency ('no-op if already at latest'), which is real value beyond structured fields, but says nothing about in-place mutation of IP files, whether output products are regenerated or invalidated, or permission/session requirements.

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?

A single short sentence with the idempotency caveat parenthetically attached; no waste and appropriately sized for a one-optional-parameter tool.

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, non-destructive-looking single-parameter operation with a fully described schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential nuance (idempotency). Only the project/session prerequisites and any post-upgrade side effects are 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter's own description already explains the omitted-module-means-upgrade-all semantics. The description adds nothing further about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Upgrade IP version'), which is unambiguous in isolation. It does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as configure_ip or synth_ip, which all act on an IP module, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 only guidance is the parenthetical that it is a no-op when already at the latest version. There is no statement of when to call this versus configure_ip (change IP settings) or regenerate/synthesize steps, and no prerequisites such as an open project or generated IP.

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