files_edit

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions required, destructive nature, or behavior when optional fields are set to null. With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to deliver.

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 very short (one sentence), which is front-loaded but lacks sufficient detail. It is concise but at the expense of completeness.

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 has 4 parameters and is an edit action, the description provides minimal context. An output schema exists but is not described. More detail on usage scenarios and effects is needed.

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% with parameter descriptions already in the schema (e.g., 'New title for the file'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 'Edit a file' which clearly indicates a verb and resource, and it is distinct from sibling tools like files_upload or files_delete. However, it does not elaborate on what aspects can be edited, and 'legacy undocumented' adds ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other file-related tools such as files_upload_v2 or files_remote_update. The description lacks context for selection criteria.

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