upgrade_nextjs_16

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool runs an official codemod first (requiring clean git), automatically upgrades packages, then provides manual guidance for remaining issues. It also lists specific upgrade categories covered, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's actions.

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?

The description is well-organized with bullet points and sections (CRITICAL, Covers, Requires). It is informative without excessive verbosity, though it could be slightly shorter by combining some lines. The front-loading of the critical requirement is effective.

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 input schema (one path parameter) and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture of the tool's functionality, prerequisites, and process. Every aspect of the upgrade journey is covered, leaving no significant gaps for the agent.

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 parameter 'project_path' has 0% schema coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The description should clarify that the parameter indicates the path to the Next.js project, but it is omitted. For a simple path parameter, a brief mention would suffice.

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: guiding through upgrading to Next.js 16. It lists specific areas covered (async API changes, config migration, etc.) and distinguishes from sibling tools like nextjs_call and nextjs_docs by focusing solely on upgrades.

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 description explicitly states prerequisites (clean git state, Node.js 18+, package manager) and the two-phase process (codemod then manual guidance). It implies when to use (when upgrading to Next.js 16) but does not explicitly exclude cases where the upgrade is not needed or alternative tools are preferred.

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