update_context_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update' without revealing whether the update overwrites or appends, how scopes are applied, whether pipelineName is required for pipeline scope, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap 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 a single concise sentence with no filler, making it easy to parse. It is appropriately short, though it sacrifices informational substance for brevity.

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 tool is complex with 12 parameters, an enum scope, and no output schema or annotations. The description does not explain how scope influences required fields, what 'context file' refers to, or how it relates to sibling context tools, leaving the agent without critical usage context.

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 covers all 12 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage, so the schema already provides parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-level information and thus provides no additional value beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a clear action ('update') and resource ('context file'), but 'context file' is vague and not clearly tied to the project/branch/pipeline scopes present in the schema. It also does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like update_branch_note or read_project_context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of scope selection, prerequisites, or exclusions. The usage is only implied by the tool name and generic description.

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