Overwrite an existing file's content in a Seafile library, preserving previous versions in history.
Overwrite a file (new version in history).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| repo_id | No | ||
| is_base64 | No | ||
| repo_token | No | ||
| library_name | No | ||
| account_token | No | ||
| session_token | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation overwrites and creates a new version, implying some mutation and history behavior, but it does not mention authentication requirements, potential destructive consequences, or response details. This is minimal disclosure for a write operation.
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 short, which is concise, but it sacrifices substance. Important behavioral and parameter information is missing, making this under-specification rather than efficient brevity. There is no front-loading of critical details beyond the basic action.
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 eight parameters, many optional, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It provides no explanation of parameter semantics, no guidance on when to use it, and no information about authentication or side effects. An agent would struggle to use this correctly without additional external knowledge.
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%, and the description mentions none of the eight parameters. It fails to explain critical ones like path, content, is_base64, or the various token parameters. The agent must rely entirely on the bare schema titles, which is inadequate for correct invocation.
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 'Overwrite a file (new version in history)' clearly identifies the verb and resource, and the parenthetical adds a distinguishing detail about versioning. It is specific enough to understand the core action, though it does not explicitly contrast with upload_file or other 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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like upload_file or read_file. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context without any explicit conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.