yaaif_desktop_tool_package_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a mutation ('Update') and notes 'no local codebase required', but it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it overwrites or merges metadata, whether it triggers a rebuild, or affects running instances), nor does it mention permissions, reversibility, or what happens if fields are omitted. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately provides the key differentiator and alternative. It is appropriately sized for the information it conveys.

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 tool with 12 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain what constitutes 'Package Registry metadata', which parameters are typically updated, what happens if only package_id is provided, or what the response will look like. The description only covers the 'what' and 'when not to use' but leaves out essential operational details, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke this tool correctly.

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%, and there are 12 parameters, including nested objects like env_template and arrays like capabilities and command_args. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning—it simply says 'Update Package Registry metadata' without clarifying which fields are updatable, which are optional vs. required, or how they relate to the update operation. Given the large parameter count and zero schema descriptions, the description completely fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess the semantics of most 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: 'Update Package Registry metadata for an existing command MCP package.' It specifies the verb 'update', the resource 'Package Registry metadata', and the target 'existing command MCP package'. It also explicitly differentiates from the sibling publish tool by noting 'no local codebase required' and pointing to the alternative for source refresh, making it easy for an agent to distinguish this tool from similar ones.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'To refresh the archive from source, use yaaif_desktop_tool_package_publish mode=update.' It clearly implies that this tool is for metadata updates only, not source refresh, and it names the specific alternative. This is a clear when/when-not scenario with an explicit sibling reference.

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