QuantConnect

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, indicating safe retry behavior. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'update' (implying mutation), but doesn't contradict annotations. It misses details like permission requirements, side effects, or response format, though annotations cover some safety aspects.

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 no wasted words. It's front-loaded and directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, 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 a mutation tool with annotations (idempotentHint) and an output schema (implied by context signals), the description is minimally adequate. It states the action but lacks context on file types, project structure, or error handling. With annotations and schema support, it meets a basic threshold but could be more informative.

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?

Parameter count is 1 (a nested object 'model'), with schema description coverage at 0%, but the schema's $defs provide full descriptions for all nested properties (projectId, name, content, codeSourceId). The description doesn't add param semantics, but the schema compensates well, making a baseline of 4 appropriate given the effective documentation.

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 'Update the contents of a file' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('contents of a file'), but it's vague about scope and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'patch_file' or 'update_file_name'. It specifies what's being updated (contents) but lacks detail about the operation's nature or context.

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 like 'patch_file' or 'create_file'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios for usage, leaving the agent without context for selection among similar file-related tools.

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