workiva_update_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only states the action and gives an example, but omits information about permissions, error handling, partial application, idempotency, or reversibility—significant gaps 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 concise and front-loaded: the purpose sentence and two-line Args section contain no redundant or extraneous content. Every sentence earns its place, achieving clarity in minimal words.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose and parameters adequately. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, and there's no mention of how the tool handles invalid patches or nonexistent file IDs. It's minimally viable but not comprehensive.

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 schema provides only titles with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds valuable meaning: file_id is a UUID and patches is a JSON Patch array with a concrete replace example. This compensates for the schema's lack of detail, though it doesn't enumerate all patch operation possibilities.

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 'Update a file using JSON Patch operations' with concrete examples (rename, move), which specifies the verb, resource, and method. This distinguishes it from sibling file tools like workiva_create_file, workiva_delete_file, and workiva_get_file.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The usage is implied by the tool name and patch operation examples, but the description doesn't contrast with other file manipulation tools or state exclusion criteria.

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