Update Project File

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), the description discloses that the operation creates a new file version, that omitted fields retain current values, and that failures return specific HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). It also explains the payload nesting behavior. This enriches the agent's understanding far beyond annotation flags.

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 paragraph but tightly packed with useful information, front-loaded with the primary action. It covers semantics, prerequisites, error handling, and required parameters without redundancy. It could be slightly more scannable with bullets, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

For an 11-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the return value, common error statuses, parameter-passing mechanics, and the requirement to resolve ids first. Combined with the rich schema and annotations, this description is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that record fields are passed as top-level arguments but are nested under 'file' in the payload, and that id must reference an existing parent record resolved via a list tool. This clarifies parameter relationships and prerequisites that the schema alone does not convey.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Update the specified File (creates a new file version).' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling create/show/delete tools by focusing on update semantics and partial field updates. It also provides the exact HTTP method and endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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?

It gives clear usage context: send only fields to change, omitted fields keep current values, and id must be resolved with a list tool first. It states required parameters explicitly. While it does not name specific alternative tools or when-not cases, the update-focused phrasing and prerequisite guidance make the intended usage clear.

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