update_text_file

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

No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool updates content but does not disclose whether it replaces the entire content, what happens if the file does not exist, or whether special permissions are required. This is minimal and leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 extremely concise and well-structured. The main sentence states the purpose directly, followed by a clear Args section. No unnecessary words or repetition; it gets straight to the point 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 two-parameter update tool, this description is minimally viable. It includes an output schema (not shown) so return values are not required. However, it lacks usage guidance, behavioral details like overwrite semantics, and any mention of alternatives, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively: 'file_id: ID del archivo a actualizar' and 'content: Nuevo contenido' clearly explain both parameters. However, it does not provide any format constraints or additional semantics beyond their basic meaning.

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 'Actualiza el contenido de un archivo de texto existente', specifying both the action (update) and the resource (existing text file). This distinguishes it from siblings like upload_text_file, which implies creation or uploading rather than updating an existing file.

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 the existence of upload_text_file or other file operations, nor does it state prerequisites or edge cases (e.g., file must exist). The only implicit hint is the word 'existente', but this is not explicit enough.

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