update_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update an existing file' without revealing any behavioral traits: no mention of commit behavior, branch requirements, error handling for non-existent files, permissions, or side effects. 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, which is concise, but it adds minimal value over the tool name. It includes 'in a Codeup repository' which provides slight context, but it is essentially a restatement of the function name. This reduces its effectiveness; it is not overly verbose but fails to justify its brevity by omitting any additional guidance.

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?

This tool has 7 parameters (6 required), no annotations, and no output schema, making it moderately complex. The description only covers the basic action and does not address commit behavior, branch handling, encoding, or any operational constraints (e.g., file existence). The schema covers parameter definitions but not the tool's overall semantics, leaving the description inadequate for full context.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not clarify encoding usage, URL encoding for filePath, or the relationship between organizationId and repositoryId, leaving the schema to do all the work.

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 'Update an existing file in a Codeup repository' clearly specifies the verb (update), the resource (existing file), and the context (Codeup repository). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_file and delete_file by implying mutation of an existing entity rather than creation or deletion.

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 gives a clear purpose but does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives. It implies that it should be used for modifying existing files, but it does not state exclusions (e.g., 'use create_file for new files') or mention alternative tools. This leaves the agent to infer usage context from the tool name and siblings.

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