bump_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the use of `uv version` but does not disclose side effects such as modifying project files, whether it's reversible, or prerequisites. The `dry_run` parameter is not explained in the description, leaving the agent to infer that the tool writes changes without it.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action. It is concise and contains no fluff, though the implementation detail `uv version` could be considered optional. Overall, it is appropriately sized.

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?

The tool is simple, all parameters are optional and well-documented in the schema, and an output schema exists. The description adequately states the purpose, and while it lacks behavioral context such as side effects, the schema richness compensates. The description is sufficient for selection and invocation, though not exceptional.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond naming the underlying `uv version` command, so it does not improve on the schema.

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 action ('Bump') and the resource ('a project's version'), and the reference to ``uv version`` identifies the mechanism. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `self_version` which would refer to the tool's own version, not the project's.

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 implies the usage scenario (when you want to bump a project's version) but provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or when-not-to-use guidance. It is a straightforward statement of purpose without contextual guidance.

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