microsoft_update_file

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

The description only provides routing details (JWT, tenant, company scope) but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether it modifies file contents, requires permissions, or has side effects. Since no annotations exist, the description should carry the full burden but fails.

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 short but not concise in a helpful way; it wastes space on routing info without adding functional value. A better structure would front-load the tool's purpose and usage.

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?

Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description fails to explain the core operation of updating a file. It is incomplete for a tool that modifies state, as it lacks any context about what fields can be updated, prerequisites, or expected outcomes.

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?

The single parameter 'arguments' is described as a 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which adds no meaningful detail. With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no information about required fields or format, making it nearly useless for parameter construction.

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 states 'update_file' but does not clarify what updating a file entails (e.g., content, metadata, permissions). Among siblings like microsoft_download_file and microsoft_upload_file, the purpose is vaguely implied but not explicitly defined.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like microsoft_upload_file for creating files or microsoft_download_file for reading. No prerequisites or context provided.

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