yandex_check_update

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

Adds concrete behavior beyond the annotations: 'Suggest-only' (it will not apply an update despite the 'update' name), a '24h cache unless force=true' timing/rate constraint, and 'never calls Yandex' scope limitation. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs and align with readOnlyHint/idempotentHint rather than contradicting them.

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?

Two tight sentences, fully front-loaded: the scope first, then the behavioral constraints. No filler, and every clause carries information.

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 single-parameter, read-only, output-schema-backed tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and the one parameter interaction. No return-value explanation is needed since an output schema exists, so nothing an agent requires is missing.

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 gives 'force' no description (0% coverage), so the description must compensate, and it does: '24h cache unless force=true' explains that force bypasses the cache. That meaningfully documents the one parameter, though it could be slightly more explicit about the default (false).

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('GitHub for a newer zai-yandex-mcp release') plus the outcome ('suggest the update command'). This is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the many Yandex API siblings, since it targets GitHub and the MCP package itself.

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?

Gives clear operating context ('Suggest-only... never calls Yandex'), which tells the agent this is a local/suggestion operation, not a Yandex API call. It doesn't explicitly state when to invoke it over alternatives, but for an update-check tool with no functional sibling the context is sufficient.

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