Update Project Upload

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

Annotations provide basic safety hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the tool returns the modified object on success, which is useful. However, it does not disclose permissions, rate limits, or potential side effects. Note: annotation openWorldHint=true slightly contradicts schema's additionalProperties:false, but the description does not address this.

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 efficient: three sentences plus endpoint info, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant phrases. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description explains the return value and references the API version, which partially compensates for the missing output schema. However, it fails to explain the 'segments' parameter meaning or provide usage examples, leaving room for misunderstanding.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for parameters, so baseline is 3. The description restates required parameters (project_id, uuid) and mentions they are path parameters via the endpoint. However, it adds no explanation of 'segments' beyond what the schema provides, leaving its meaning ambiguous.

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 it updates existing File Access & Storage records and returns the modified object. It includes the API endpoint, reinforcing the resource identity. However, among a long list of 'update_*' siblings, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself beyond the resource name.

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 implies partial update semantics ('only the supplied fields are changed'), but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create or delete. It lists required parameters but no context on prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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