Update Self

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

Annotations already mark it as destructive, idempotent, and open world. The description adds value by noting the need for user approval and the version support (stable, beta, explicit). This provides context beyond the annotations.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the main action and key constraints. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 destructive tool with 5 parameters, the description covers the core purpose and two parameters. It omits explanations for dry_run, reinstall_skill, and response_format. The presence of an output schema reduces need for return value details, but parameter gaps reduce 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'version' parameter with target options and implies the 'approved_by_user' parameter. However, it does not explain 'dry_run', 'reinstall_skill', or 'response_format', leaving gaps.

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 updates the MCP server via npm and syncs a bundled skill. It specifies version targets (stable, beta, explicit). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like localnest_update_status.

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 mentions 'Requires explicit user approval,' which gives a usage condition. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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