ds_update_resource_content

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately warns that 'Changes take effect immediately' and that workflows referencing the script will use the new version on next execution, which is a significant behavioral trait. However, it omits details about permissions, error handling, or reversibility, leaving room for more 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: a one-sentence purpose followed by a warning and an args list. It is front-loaded with the core function, includes a necessary behavioral warning, and contains no filler. Every line 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 flat parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides enough context for basic usage. It covers the key side effect (immediate workflow impact) and the text-only constraint. However, it does not mention what response to expect or error conditions, which would make it fully complete for an 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides per-parameter explanations: 'resource_id: Resource ID', 'content: New file content', and 'description: Update note (optional)'. While these are minimal, they clarify each parameter's role beyond the bare schema, especially the optional nature of 'description'.

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 the tool's function: 'Update resource file content (text files only).' The verb 'Update' plus the specific resource and content scope distinguish it from sibling tools like ds_rename_resource, ds_delete_resource, and ds_view_resource. The explicit 'text files only' constraint adds important scope clarity.

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 use case (updating resource file content) but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools such as ds_upload_file or ds_online_create_file. The warning about immediate effects and workflow execution gives contextual guidance, but there is no explicit 'when not to use' or mention of alternatives.

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