create_update_schema_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Create or update' implies a mutation operation, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if it overwrites existing files, what happens on conflicts, or any rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters including a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, or how it interacts with sibling tools like 'delete_schema_file'. For a mutation tool with multiple parameters and no structured support, more context is needed.

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 80%, which is high, so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter information. The description doesn't explain what parameters like 'apiId', 'schemaId', or 'root.enabled' mean beyond what's in the schema, but with good schema coverage, this is adequate though not helpful.

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 'Create or update a schema file' clearly states the action (create/update) and resource (schema file), which is better than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'create_api_schema' or 'delete_schema_file'—it's vague about what makes this specific schema file operation different from those other schema-related operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools like 'create_api_schema', 'delete_schema_file', and 'get_schema_file_contents', there's no indication of when this create/update operation is appropriate versus those other schema operations, nor any mention of prerequisites or constraints.

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