nexo_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: pulling code, backing up DBs, running migrations, verifying, and rollback on failure. It covers the main side effects and safety net, though it could mention permission requirements or potential downtime.

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?

Two concise sentences effectively communicate the entire update process and rollback behavior. No wasted words; the description is front-loaded with actions.

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 no output schema, the description does not hint at return values or output format. It also omits details like whether the system is unavailable during update or if concurrency is safe. The core process is covered but leaves gaps in completeness.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 75%, and the description does not add any additional parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. The progress_fn parameter lacks schema description and is not mentioned in the description. The description adds no new semantic value for parameters.

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: pulling latest code, backing up DBs, running migrations, verifying, and rolling back on failure. This distinguishes it from other nexo_* tools by outlining a multi-step update process.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use for updating the NEXO system but does not specify prerequisites, scenarios to avoid, or comparisons with sibling tools like nexo_backup_now or nexo_reindex.

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