update_file_content

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that it updates content at specific rows, optionally only replacing a substring. It does not explicitly state that the operation is destructive or what happens to other rows, but the 'update' verb implies mutation. This is fairly transparent but could be more explicit.

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 structured as a concise docstring with clear Args and Returns sections. Each parameter is explained in a single line, and there is no wasted verbiage. It efficiently conveys the necessary information.

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 all parameters and returns 'Operation result information', which is generic. However, it does not specify what happens when row or rows are omitted (e.g., does it update the entire file?), nor does it mention file existence or error conditions. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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 JSON schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: path, content, row (0-based optional), rows (list optional), and substring (optional replacement). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 states 'Update content at specific row(s) in a file', which specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like delete, insert, or write by targeting specific rows, making it clear when this tool is appropriate.

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 provides a clear action but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like write_file or insert_file_content. However, the focus on row-level updates implies its use case, and the description is adequate for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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