apply_updates

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: noninteractive execution, the need for confirm=True, and the return format `{exit_code, output}`. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the safety gate and result shape, which is helpful for an agent deciding whether to invoke the tool.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the action. Every phrase adds value: the exact command, noninteractive mode, the confirm requirement, the prerequisite step, and the return type. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 system-modifying tool with only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, prerequisite workflow, safety requirement, and return format. It does not explain side effects beyond 'APT upgrades', but the destructiveHint annotation covers the risk profile, and the tool's scope (APT) is well understood. A perfect score would require more detail about failure modes or specific system impact, but this is sufficient for an 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 schema has one boolean parameter 'confirm' with default false and no description beyond its title. The tool description compensates by explicitly stating 'Requires confirm=True', adding critical meaning that the parameter must be true for the upgrade to proceed. This is important semantic information not present in the schema.

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 installs pending APT upgrades via `apt-get -y upgrade` with noninteractive mode. It names a specific verb ('Install') and resource ('pending APT upgrades'), and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools like `available_updates` (which lists updates) and `run_command` (generic).

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Requires confirm=True' and 'Run `available_updates` first to see what changes.' This tells the agent when to use the tool (after checking available updates) and the required prerequisite (confirm=True). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear and actionable.

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