vibe_manage

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the exact underlying command (`uv tool install --upgrade mistral-vibe`), which reveals the real side effect of install/update. It stops short of describing permission, network, or failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the tool is already current), so it is informative but not exhaustive.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the resource ('Operational helper for the Vibe CLI') and then lists the actions with the command quoted inline. Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical/nesting makes it slightly denser than a plain action list.

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 one-parameter tool with no nested objects and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the three modes, and the implementation command, which is enough to call it correctly. The remaining gap is the return shape of `status` and of install/update, which is only gestured at with '(installed? version)'.

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 single `action` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including enum values and their meaning, so the baseline is 3. The description's parenthetical '(installed? version)' adds a small hint about what the status action reports, but otherwise restates the schema's enum descriptions almost verbatim.

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 names a concrete resource (the Vibe CLI installation) and enumerates the three operations it supports: status, install, and update. That is specific enough to separate it from vibe_run and vibe_resume, which operate on sessions rather than the CLI install, though the description never explicitly states that 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'use this when you need to check or change whether the Vibe CLI is installed', but the description never says when to prefer this over the sibling tools or what prerequisite conditions apply (e.g., whether uv must already be present).

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