Update Strategy Draft

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) by disclosing that the operation uses optimistic concurrency and that stale values are rejected with a conflict error. This is valuable behavioral context not present in the annotations. It effectively communicates the concurrency mechanism and error behavior, though it does not detail side effects on the file or whether partial updates are allowed. Given the annotations already flag it as a write operation, the description adds meaningful transparency.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—with the core action front-loaded. There is no fluff. It manages to convey the purpose and a critical behavioral detail (optimistic concurrency) in very few words. It could be slightly longer to cover parameters, but as a concise statement it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

With five required parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema visible (though the signal says one exists), the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool. It lacks explanations of what a 'draft file' is, how to identify it via draft_id and relative_path, how to generate expected_revision and expected_file_hash, and what content format is expected. The description covers the concurrency aspect but leaves the rest to guesswork. This is a critical incompleteness for a tool with this many parameters.

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 full burden for parameter semantics. It only implicitly references 'expected_revision' and 'expected_file_hash' through the phrase 'current revision and exact file hash', but it does not define them or any of the other three parameters (draft_id, relative_path, content). An agent would have no idea what format content should be in, what relative_path refers to, or how to obtain the expected values. This is a significant gap given no schema descriptions exist.

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 one editable draft file') and includes the key mechanism (optimistic concurrency). It is specific about the resource type (draft file) and distinguishes it from other draft-related tools like get_strategy_draft or validate_strategy_draft by focusing on the update action. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling tool or contrast with them, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., create_strategy_draft, validate_strategy_draft, apply_strategy_changes). The description only explains what the tool does, not the conditions under which it should be chosen over alternatives. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned beyond the requirement of current revision/hash, which is more of a technical constraint than a usage context.

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