sigma_update_file

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds context about the specific properties that can be updated (name, parentId), which is useful but goes little beyond the annotations. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, or reversibility, but given annotation coverage, this is acceptable.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key parameters, and every word contributes.

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 simple update tool with a present output schema and adequate annotations, the description covers the essential use cases. It mentions the main updatable properties and the moving use case. Some details like behavior when 'body' is empty or optionality of parentId are not specified, but the presence of an output schema and annotations reduces the need for longer explanation.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It offers examples of what to put in 'body' (name, parentId), adding meaning beyond the schema's generic 'body' object. However, it does not explicitly explain 'inode_id' or the structure/requirements of 'body' beyond two example fields, leaving room for ambiguity.

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 tool updates file properties, with specific examples (name, parentId for moving). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sigma_delete_file (which deletes) and sigma_create_folder (which creates). The verb 'update' plus resource 'file' makes the 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 description implies the tool is for modifying existing files, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., 'use sigma_delete_file to remove a file, not this'). No explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so usage is only implied by context and the tool name.

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