ddflow_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral consequence: undeclared files are unprotected and commit will be refused, which is valuable. However, it does not describe return values, error behavior, persistence semantics, or whether the update is partial or full.

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 compact and front-loaded: first the general purpose, then the most important operational guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the critical warning is stated directly without filler.

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?

The description covers the essential update purpose and the key `globs` caveat, making it usable in the highlighted scenario. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it is incomplete about what happens after a successful update, how errors surface, and whether unspecified fields are left untouched or reset.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value for `globs`, explaining that it should be widened before writing and why declared globs matter for protection and commit acceptance. It does not need to add detail for the other parameters since the schema already documents them.

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 identifies the tool as changing an item's fields, which is a specific verb+resource. It also highlights the most important use case, widening `globs`, which helps differentiate intent, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tools.

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 gives a concrete when-to-use rule: widen `globs` before writing files that fall outside the originally claimed set. It explains why this matters via the conflict detector and commit hook, but it does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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