Update the contents of an existing file by specifying its full path and new content, enabling AI assistants to modify hosted files through cPanel.
Update the contents of an existing file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Full file path to edit | |
| content | Yes | New file content |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update the contents' without mentioning that this likely overwrites the entire file, what happens if the file does not exist, or any permission requirements. This is a significant gap 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 sentence that immediately states the core action. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains 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?
The tool is simple with only two fully documented parameters, and the description covers the essential purpose and the 'existing file' distinction. However, it omits behavioral details such as full-content overwrite behavior and failure conditions, preventing a perfect score.
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?
The input schema provides full descriptions for both required parameters (path and content), giving 100% schema coverage. The description itself adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already explains, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
Description uses the specific verb 'Update' with the resource 'existing file', clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like create_file, read_file, and delete_file. The word 'existing' adds important scope, making the tool's purpose 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?
The context is clear: use this tool to modify an existing file, as opposed to creating a new one with create_file. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.