Composer Update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing. The verb "update" hints at a mutating dependency operation, but the description omits that it rewrites composer.lock, may pull new dependency versions that break the site, requires network access, and can be long-running/side-effect-heavy.

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?

A single four-word sentence is technically concise and front-loaded, but the brevity here is under-specification rather than economy. Nothing informative survives the trimming.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a mutating shell-level dependency operation with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. It omits risk profile, environment assumptions, and how it relates to the other composer_* tools.

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 description coverage is 0% with two parameters (no_dev, working_dir), so the description is expected to compensate and does not. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, which keeps this above the floor, but the description adds no meaning about what no_dev skips or how working_dir is resolved.

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?

"Run composer update" restates the tool name and title nearly verbatim, which is the definition of tautology under the rubric. It does not distinguish this tool from its obvious siblings composer_install, composer_require, or composer_audit, so an agent cannot infer scope from the text alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus composer_install or composer_require, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description offers no usage context whatsoever.

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