update_claudemd

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait ('creates backup first'), which is valuable for safety. However, it doesn't cover other important aspects like whether the update is reversible, potential side effects, or error handling, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a critical behavioral detail ('creates backup first') without any wasted words. Every part 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 a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and a safety feature (backup), but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement given the complexity.

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 the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'min_confidence' or 'project_path' relate to the update process. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Update CLAUDE.md file') and purpose ('with learned preferences'), and mentions a key behavioral detail ('creates backup first'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'suggest_claudemd_update' or 'export_to_markdown', but the core purpose is well-defined.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like 'suggest_claudemd_update' or 'get_learned_preferences' is provided. The description implies usage for updating preferences but lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

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