server_update

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true), and the description adds substantially beyond them: it does not touch the running process, it refuses with `status="refused"` plus `reason` on any of four preconditions (dirty tree, non-main branch, non-fast-forward, offline), and it never throws exceptions. These are exactly the failure modes an agent needs to plan around.

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the action, then the trigger, then the refusal contract — each sentence carries distinct information. Slightly dense in the second paragraph, where the restart warning and the relay instruction are packed together, but nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the fields the agent will see (`status`, `reason`, `message`) and what to do with them. For a zero-parameter, state-dependent mutation tool, the trigger, refusal semantics, and required follow-up are all covered.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the schema baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly conveys that invocation is argument-free and behavior is determined entirely by repository state.

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: updates the MCP server itself to origin/main via git fast-forward plus dependency reinstall. Nothing in the large sibling list (pipeline_run, dataset_load, console_run) could be confused with this; the scope 'this MCP server itself' is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger conditions and their sources (the header line of `load_dataset`, the `update_available` field of `dataset_status` / `console_status`). It also states the post-condition action — the user must restart Claude Desktop — and instructs the agent to relay the returned `message` verbatim.

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