self_update

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

The description states update is '覆盖安装' (overwrite install) and '需确认' (needs confirmation), indicating destructive behavior, but the annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction, undermining trust in the metadata.

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 compact and front-loaded, using two short sentences to cover the main purpose and sub-actions. It avoids redundant information and every phrase contributes to understanding.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what check returns and what update's outcome is, but it does not. It also fails to detail the confirmation process and post-update effects. The annotation contradiction further reduces reliability.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both action and project_path, including that check is read-only and update is destructive. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers, so the baseline of 3 is given.

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 states the tool checks/updates 'enhanced' itself, with explicit sub-actions: check (read-only version status) and update (overwrite install). This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like manage_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 provides clear context for when to use check vs update: check is read-only and safe, while update is destructive and requires confirmation. It implies check-before-update but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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