jekyll_docs_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: it modifies project files, it auto-fills gaps from detected Liquid parameters, and it supports dry_run as a preview mechanism. However, it omits overwrite semantics, permission requirements, and what happens to existing content that isn't in the new input.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the mutation and dry_run facts are stated plainly. Minimal but efficient, with no wasted text.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum explain the input fields, overwrite behavior, and the create-vs-update boundary.

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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it barely does. It only clarifies dry_run; name, notes, overview, variants, parameters, and accessibility are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update or regenerate documentation for a component'), clearly a mutation of an existing docs artifact. It does not name the obvious sibling jekyll_docs_create, so the agent must infer the update-vs-create split, but the purpose itself is 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?

No when-to-use guidance and no distinction from jekyll_docs_create or from the other update-style siblings. The clause 'Fills gaps from detected Liquid parameters when possible' hints at behavior but does not tell the agent when to choose this tool over regenerating by other means.

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