update-argent

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

Discloses important behavioral traits: the tool server restarts automatically, failure conditions (no update available or update in progress), and return value structure. Given no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well.

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?

Concise and well-structured: front-loaded with main action, then details on usage, parameter, side effect, and failure modes. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, when to call, parameter details, behavior, and return value. Little room for improvement.

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 description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the default behavior of the 'target' parameter and the meaning of each option. Schema coverage is 100%, but description enriches understanding.

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's purpose: 'Apply a pending Argent update.' It specifies the resource (Argent update) and action (apply), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'dismiss-update' by indicating when to apply vs. dismiss.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Only call this tool when the user has explicitly consented to updating Argent in this conversation.' It also specifies conditions (update notification, user agreement) and default behavior. However, it does not explicitly mention the alternative sibling 'dismiss-update' for cases where the user declines.

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