update_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the operation and explains the SHA parameter; it doesn't disclose that updating typically creates a commit, requires write authorization, or can fail on SHA mismatch. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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: two short sentences, each adding information. The purpose is front-loaded and the SHA clarification is relevant. No fluff, though more detail could be added without hurting structure.

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 tool with 8 parameters, 5 required, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It doesn't explain commit behavior, branch handling, base64 encoding, or the role of the message parameter. An agent would likely need to consult external API docs to invoke it correctly.

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 explain the parameters. It only clarifies 'sha is the current file blob SHA'. The other seven parameters—content, base64, branch, message, filepath, owner, repo—are left entirely to inference, which is a significant gap for an 8-parameter tool.

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 operation with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing file.' It implicitly differentiates from create_file and delete_file by saying 'existing,' though it doesn't name sibling tools explicitly.

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 for when to use this tool versus create_file, delete_file, or get_file_content. The description doesn't mention prerequisites such as the file needing to exist or when a SHA is required, leaving the agent to infer conditions from parameter names.

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