self_update

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It does not disclose that this replaces the current executable, may require elevated permissions, or that omitting target_version installs the latest version. The annotation already signals destructive potential, but this is minimal.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and resource, making it efficiently scannable.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context about default behavior (e.g., updating to latest) and the irreversible nature of replacing the executable. The schema and annotation fill some gaps, but the description could be more complete.

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 description does not mention target_version, but the input schema provides a clear description ('Optional version to install.') with 100% coverage. The baseline of 3 applies since no extra semantics are added by the description.

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 'Update the uv executable' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like self_version (which likely shows the version) and tool_upgrade (which updates other tools). The phrase 'uv executable' pinpoints the target.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention 'use this for updating uv itself' or exclude cases like upgrading other tools, nor does it explain the optional target_version behavior.

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