update_file_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'Update' implying mutation, but does not disclose potential side effects like overwriting content, creating a new commit, or requiring specific permissions. It also doesn't mention what happens if the file doesn't exist or if the branch is protected.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. It is efficient and avoids unnecessary detail, though it could benefit from a brief note on prerequisites or side effects without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, 5 required, and an output schema, the description is minimal but adequate for a straightforward update operation. However, it lacks context on error conditions, commit behavior, or how it interacts with branches, which could be important for an agent to use it correctly. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but behavioral context is thin.

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 already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, but the baseline is 3 given high coverage. It doesn't clarify relationships between parameters (e.g., encoding affects content interpretation) beyond what the schema already states.

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 an existing file in a GitLab repository, which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings like create_file_tool and get_file_tool, though it doesn't explicitly mention that it requires the file to already exist.

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 usage for updating files but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus create_file_tool or other file operations. It lacks context on prerequisites like branch existence or file existence, and no alternatives are mentioned.

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