neurover_update_apply

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

Annotations already declare this is not read-only and is open-world, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a consent gate, a mutual-exclusion constraint against running cleanup, and the mandatory full client restart after success. Failure/rollback behavior and whether the update is reversible are not covered, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the gating conditions and the post-success step; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisites, the blocking state, and the required follow-up action by the user. What remains unaddressed — error handling and what a partial/failed update leaves behind — is minor but real for a self-update operation.

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 0% for the single 'confirm' boolean, so the description has to carry the meaning, and 'Вызывать только после явного согласия пользователя' effectively defines confirm=true as evidence of user consent. It does not state that confirm is a required const-true flag, but the intent is conveyed.

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 with source: 'Обновить Neurover MCP до последней версии с GitHub' — an agent knows exactly what happens. It does not name the sibling neurover_update_check as the read-only counterpart, which is the only thing separating it from a 5.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition for invoking ('only after explicit user consent') and an explicit blocking condition ('does not start while background cleanup is in progress'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of pointing at neurover_update_check as the alternative for querying version state without mutating.

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