update-file

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

The description discloses that it replaces file content, appears in the upload log, preserves history, and can fail due to directory restrictions. Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which are consistent with the described mutation behavior. No contradiction.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then alternatives and constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and constraints. It is fully complete for an agent to use the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so descriptions exist for all parameters. The description adds important context beyond schema: filepath must be an absolute path inside a configured upload directory, title can have or omit 'File:' prefix, and comment is the reason for upload. This extra detail justifies a 4.

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 purpose: 'Uploads a new revision of an existing file from the local disk, preserving prior revisions in the file history.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update-page, upload-file, and update-file-from-url, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: use update-page for editing wikitext, upload-file for initial upload, and update-file-from-url for remote source. It also notes prerequisites (filepath must be absolute path inside configured upload directory).

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