ralph.upsert_spec

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool can both write and update existing spec files, implying upsert semantics, and it names the target directory. It does not describe overwrite granularity, return values, or side effects, but the core mutating behavior is visible.

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 sentence with no filler. The action and target path are front-loaded, and the usage guidance follows immediately. Every word earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description provides the essential art: what to do, where files go, and when to call it. However, the lack of parameter format details and any mention of behavior around existing specs leaves gaps that an agent must infer.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only implies parameter meaning indirectly through 'spec file under .ralph/specs/**'. It does not explain what content format is expected, how relativePath should be structured, or any constraints on either parameter.

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 ('Write/update') and a precise resource ('a spec file under .ralph/specs/**'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_plan, write_prd, and write_epic_plan, which target different artifacts.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: call iteratively during Phase 2 while exploring source files and refining understanding. It does not name alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, but the phase and iterative workflow guidance are solid.

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