Update test artifacts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states that content is fully replaced (not patched), that the operation is idempotent, and describes success/error behavior. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits, though these are minor omissions.

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 concise (4 sentences) and well-structured, with each sentence serving a clear purpose: stating the main function, explaining replacement semantics, providing usage guidance, and describing idempotency and error handling. No unnecessary words.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, behavioral traits (overwrite, idempotent), when to use vs. sibling, error scenarios, and parameter roles. It provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description reinforces the full-replacement nature of the 'content' parameter and mentions the conditional requirement of 'identifier' for PLAYWRIGHT_CODE, but adds little beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Create or overwrite a test artifact in a suite with caller-supplied content.' It specifies the verb (create/overwrite) and the resource (test artifact), and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool wopee_generate_artifact by contrasting when to use each.

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 provides explicit guidance: use this tool for uploading your own content or refining AI-generated artifacts, and use wopee_generate_artifact when you want the AI engine to author from scratch. It also notes that the tool works on any suite, including blank ones, clarifying when it's applicable.

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