tool_upgrade

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the behavior around the optional parameter (all tools when no name is given), but does not mention side effects of upgrading, such as network access, version replacement, or potential breaking changes. This is adequate but 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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action verb and clearly states the two modes. It contains no wasted words and is easy to parse.

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 provides enough information about the core behavior. It lacks details on what 'upgrade' does exactly (e.g., source, side effects), but given the simplicity and existing output schema, it is fairly 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 schema already describes 'name' as 'Optional tool name' (100% coverage), but the description adds crucial semantics: omitting the name triggers an upgrade of all tools. This goes beyond the schema's literal wording and helps the agent understand the default behavior.

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 ('upgrade') and the resource ('uv tool'), with explicit scope: either one named tool or all tools. This distinguishes it from siblings like tool_install, tool_list, and tool_uninstall, and also from self_update or python_upgrade.

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 gives clear guidance on the two usage modes: specify a name to upgrade one tool, or omit it to upgrade all. This is useful contexts, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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