bb_update_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does so well: it says the full content is replaced, that a commit message can be supplied with a default, and that a new commit id is returned. It does not mention permissions or branch-existence requirements, but the core mutation behavior and return value are clear.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The primary action and target come first, followed by the optional parameter default and the return value. Every sentence contributes useful 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?

For a simple six-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it states what is replaced, where, the default message, and the return value. It could be even more complete by explicitly routing new-file creation to bb_create_file or noting branch requirements, but nothing essential to invoking the tool is missing.

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 50%, and the description adds some meaning by explaining the message default and confirming the path is an existing file. However, it does not describe branch, repoSlug, or projectKey semantics beyond what their obvious names and the 'on branch' phrase suggest. This is minimally acceptable but not strong compensation for the schema gaps.

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 specific verb ('Replace the full content'), a specific resource ('an existing file'), and a target branch. The word 'existing' clearly distinguishes this from sibling bb_create_file, and 'Returns the new commit id' announces the outcome.

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 clearly signals that this tool is for replacing existing files, implying it is not for creating new files. It does not explicitly name bb_create_file as the alternative or state exclusions, but the 'existing file' condition provides clear context for selection.

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