update_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It discloses the replace_all semantics (default true vs. false) which is valuable context. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., what happens if old_text is not found) or whether the file must already exist, which would enhance transparency.

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 well-structured: starting with a clear summary, then usage context, then parameter details. Each sentence contributes value, and the front-loaded opening ensures the core purpose is immediately clear.

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 tool with 4 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, usage, and parameter details. It is quite complete, though it omits error behavior (e.g., non-existent path or missing old_text), which would make it fully 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by explicitly explaining each parameter in an Args block, including the replace_all default behavior. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, making parameter semantics exceptionally clear.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: "Find and replace text inside a file." It clearly distinguishes from siblings like write_file (which likely overwrites entire files) by noting it operates "within an existing 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?

The description delivers explicit when-to-use guidance: "Use this when the user asks to change, replace, or update specific text within an existing file." It stops short of naming sibling tools as alternatives (e.g., write_file for full overwrites), so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use direction.

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