Upgrade Packages

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

Annotations already declare it is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds that installed packages are modified system-wide and that dry_run gives a safe preview, which is useful context. It omits prerequisites (refreshed package lists), privilege requirements, and whether upgrades are reversible, so it adds only moderate value beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the safety lever. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 output schema this is roughly adequate, but a package upgrade is a system-mutating operation and the description leaves out prerequisites (an apt_update first) and privilege needs that an agent would want before invoking it.

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 100% and the single parameter already carries the description 'Preview changes without applying'. The description restates the same meaning for dry_run without adding format or side-effect detail, so the baseline of 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 installed packages') and anchors it to the underlying operation ('apt-get upgrade'), which lets an agent distinguish it from apt_update and apt_install. No explicit sibling differentiation is written out, but the parenthetical command is enough to place it.

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 'Set dry_run=true to preview without applying', which is a usage hint for the single parameter rather than a when-to-use statement. It never says whether apt_update should be run first or when to prefer this over apt_install for new packages, so usage is only implied.

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