Update Implementation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that tests are automatically run and results saved to history unless autoRunTests is false, and emphasizes efficient iteration. It does not mention potential destructive overwrite behavior, but that is implied by 'update'.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action and purpose. Every sentence adds value: first sentence states the action and option, second sentence explains the use case and auto-run behavior. No wasted words.

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 the main behavior and use case, but lacks explanation of the return value or what 'saves results to history' means for the agent. Given the tool has no output schema and 4 parameters including a nested object, the description is mostly complete but could clarify the response.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about auto-run tests related to autoRunTests but does not add meaning to workspaceId or implementationFile beyond the schema. This is adequate.

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 verb 'update' and the resource 'implementation file', and specifies the context 'during the refactor phase of TDD' and the benefit 'without re-uploading test files'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add-test-file' and 'run-test'.

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 implies when to use (during TDD refactor) and contrasts with not needing to re-upload test files. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond sibling tools.

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