cli_upgrade

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

The description adds context beyond annotations: it reveals the tool has a planning mode (dryRun) and uses a 'native update mechanism'. Annotations already indicate destructiveness, but the description does not elaborate on risks, authorization needs, or side effects of execution. It adequately complements annotations but lacks full behavioral disclosure.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key distinction (dryRun vs execute) and the core purpose. Every word is necessary; there is no redundancy or verbosity.

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 tool's complexity (4 parameters, destructive nature, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It explains the dual mode and mechanism. However, it omits what the plan output looks like and does not clarify that timeoutMs only applies when dryRun=false, which is contextually helpful for safe invocation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions already provide (e.g., dryRun, target, timeoutMs). It reiterates the dryRun concept but does not enrich understanding of parameter semantics.

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: to plan (dryRun) or execute an upgrade for a provider CLI using its native update mechanism. It uses specific verbs ('Plan... or execute') and specifies the resource ('one provider CLI'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cli_versions or various request tools.

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 implies usage by referencing the dryRun parameter defaulting to true, suggesting planning is the primary mode. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cli_versions for version listing) or when not to use it (e.g., during high-risk operations).

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