ako_config_upgrade

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

Annotations already indicate write intent (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by detailing the dry-run safety mechanism and confirmation requirement, addressing behavioral aspects beyond structured fields.

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 concise (6 lines), front-loaded with purpose, and structured with an Args section. Every sentence is informative and necessary.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, parameter usage, and safety measures. With an output schema present, return values do not need explanation. It is complete for the tool's simplicity, though it could mention prerequisites or cluster context.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates: 'dry_run: Preview changes without applying (default true).' This adds clear meaning and usage guidance for the sole parameter.

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 '[WRITE] Apply AKO Helm upgrade with updated values.' This is a specific verb-resource pair, distinguishing it from read-only sibling tools like ako_config_diff and ako_config_show.

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 explains the default dry_run behavior and how to apply with dry_run=false, including the need for double confirmation. It provides clear usage context but does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool in favor of siblings.

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