Gitea: Update file

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: the current SHA is needed for conflict detection, implying optimistic concurrency. It says nothing about whether new_branch creates a branch, what happens to the original branch, or what a conflict looks like.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the key constraint. The odd "[UNIFIED]" prefix is the only wasted token; otherwise it is efficiently sized.

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 a destructive 10-parameter mutation with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description is far too thin. It does not cover branch/new_branch behavior, base64 content handling, commit message semantics, or the shape of a successful response.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only explains sha (conflict detection). Nine other parameters, including the non-obvious new_branch and content_is_base64, are left with no semantic guidance in either the schema or the description.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Update an existing file in a Gitea repository") and the word "existing" distinguishes it from the sibling gitea_create_file. The "[UNIFIED]" tag adds no meaning for an agent, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer gitea_create_file, gitea_delete_file, or a patch-style sibling, and no indication of when to supply branch versus new_branch. Only the implicit contrast of "existing file" hints at an alternative.

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