Update bridge

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds the concrete side effects an agent needs: preview-only behavior without confirm, then pull, reinstall, and a host restart. The 'refuses a dirty checkout' precondition is a real operational constraint not captured by any annotation.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then prerequisite, then mode semantics, then failure condition. No filler and nothing restated from the title or schema.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers mode behavior, precondition, and the restart side effect. It stops short of telling the agent how to recover from the dirty-checkout refusal or whether a host restart can be deferred, which is the only remaining gap for a destructive operation.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already says 'Run the update. Omit to preview it.', so the description adds limited syntax detail. It does go beyond the schema by specifying what happens in preview mode ('only reports steps') and in execute mode (pull, reinstall, restart host), which is meaningful semantics for the single flag.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('update the bridge checkout from its git remote'), which is unambiguous among siblings like grok_agent_status or grok_agent_execute. It also names the sibling it pairs with (grok_agent_check_update), so the agent can place it precisely in the workflow.

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?

It states the trigger condition explicitly: use after grok_agent_check_update reports a newer version. It also gives a precondition ('refuses a dirty checkout') that tells the agent when the call will fail, but there is no stated exclusion against just re-running it or any mention of alternative update paths.

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