yaaif_desktop_tool_package_upgrade

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that this is an upgrade action that follows the same control-plane dispatch as install and that the worker upserts the local tool. However, it does not mention permissions, reversibility, no-op behavior if already current, or impact on running workers.

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 concise: two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the dispatch detail kept brief. It earns high marks for brevity, though the reference to another tool's dispatch behavior adds a small comprehension burden.

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 mutation/deployment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It omits target selection semantics, whether platform or worker filters are required, what version source is used, and what success or failure looks like. An agent would need additional context to call this reliably.

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 only 25%, with only package_id documented. The description gives hints that multiple workers might be targeted ('desktop worker(s)') and references install dispatch, but it does not explain platform, worker_id, worker_ids, or how these selection parameters interact.

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 a specific action—upgrade an already-installed command MCP to the current Package Registry version—and identifies the resource (desktop workers). It differentiates from install by emphasizing 'already installed,' but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling yaaif_desktop_tool_package_update.

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 context is implied: use this when a command MCP is already installed and needs to be brought to the current registry version. It references install dispatch but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to update, uninstall, or install.

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