Update OpenSpec instruction files to keep project specifications current and aligned with evolving workflows.
Update OpenSpec instruction files
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "openspec_update"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Update' without explaining whether this modifies files in place, requires existing files, is destructive, or has side effects. There is no mention of permissions, error conditions, or what happens to the files being updated.
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 wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and target. While it is terse, it meets the standard for conciseness, earning a top score for structure.
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 has no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is the only source of information. It fails to explain what 'update' means, the context of instruction files, or how this tool fits into the OpenSpec workflow. Given the sibling tools like openspec_instructions and openspec_refresh_cache, there is ambiguity about the tool's exact role. The description is far from complete.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. Per the rubric, 0 parameters gives a baseline of 4. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics because there are none, but it is not misleading. It would be better if it explained how the update is triggered without parameters, but that is beyond this dimension.
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 ('Update') and resource ('OpenSpec instruction files'), which clearly states the action and target. It differentiates from sibling tools like openspec_list, openspec_show, and openspec_validate because 'update' implies a write operation. However, it does not elaborate on what 'instruction files' are or the scope of the update, so it stops short of a 5.
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 no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or related tools such as openspec_instructions or openspec_new_change. The agent is left without guidance on choosing this tool among the many siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.