edit_artifact_group_item

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key failure mode (fails if path doesn't exist) and the replace semantics. It doesn't mention reversibility or permissions, but for a simple replacement tool with an output schema, this is adequate behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded purpose, critical caveat in second sentence. No filler words; every sentence 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 3-param tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage distinction, failure mode, and a special case (index.html). It's complete without needing return value details thanks to the output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, giving baseline 3. The description adds meaning by noting the path must refer to an existing file and that content fully replaces old content, plus the index.html twist. This goes slightly beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 ('Replace') and states the resource ('content of an existing file in an artifact group'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling add_artifact_group_item which creates a new file. The mention of index.html further anchors the purpose.

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?

Explicitly says 'Fails if no file exists at that path yet — use add_artifact_group_item to create one', giving a clear when-to-use vs alternative. Also notes this is how to update index.html, providing concrete context.

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