update_procedure_block

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for what is evidently a file-mutating operation, and it says almost nothing: not which files get rewritten, whether existing content outside the auto block is preserved, whether the update is idempotent or destructive, or what failures look like. 'Update ... with a new version' is the only behavioral fact given.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but the terseness is under-specification rather than efficiency. Nothing is repeated, but nothing is expanded either.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters gets one vague sentence. It does not tell the agent enough to call it safely or to predict the effect on agent/skill files.

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 0% for both required parameters. The description implies 'version' means the new version string but never defines its format, and 'project_root' is not mentioned at all, so the agent gets no help on scope or path expectations.

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?

States a verb (update) and a resource (the auto block in agent & skill files), but 'auto block' is unexplained jargon and the description never ties it to the tool name 'procedure_block'. It is distinguishable from siblings like update_plan_section only by the words 'agent & skill files', which is thin.

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 call this versus ingest_procedure, list_procedures, or provision_agent_skill, and no preconditions stated. The agent must infer the workflow entirely from the name.

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