microsoft_update_file

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

The description adds useful behavior beyond annotations: it discloses that routing is restricted to the governed connector authority, that the claimed effect is verified by Spring, and that write resumption requires an approved platform task UUID. These clarify governance and confirmation behavior. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 compact and uses a clean Args list, making the seven parameters scannable. The routing sentence and parameter list are relevant and contain little fluff. The opening line is redundant but does not add significant bulk.

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?

While the wrapper parameters are listed and an output schema exists, the description does not provide the actual arguments structure needed to update a Microsoft file. Without knowing what keys or payload shape the connector operation expects, an agent cannot construct a correct invocation. The absence of any example or reference to the upstream operation schema leaves a major gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameter meaning. It gives brief glosses for each field, but the key parameter 'arguments' is defined only as 'JSON string of arguments for the connector operation,' which is tautological and does not explain what fields the update_file payload should contain. Other identifiers like project_ref are described just as references without operational details.

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 opens with a restatement of the name: 'Microsoft connector operation update_file (platform tool microsoft.update_file).' It never states what updating a file actually does (content, metadata, path, etc.), and the routing sentence does not clarify purpose. The tool is distinguished from siblings like microsoft_upload_file and microsoft_download_file only by its name, not by description.

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 only usage-related statement is 'Routes only through the exact project/account governed connector authority,' which is a routing constraint rather than guidance on when to choose this tool. There is no mention of when to use update_file versus upload_file, download_file, or other Microsoft file tools. The agent is left to infer applicability from the name.

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