files_edit

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Legacy undocumented' provides a minimal warning of potential deprecation or instability, but it fails to disclose side effects, required permissions, or whether the tool safely updates files. This slight transparency earns a 2.

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 only one sentence, which is short, but it lacks substance. Conciseness should not sacrifice informativeness; here the sentence is too brief to be useful. There is no front-loaded key action or structured guidance.

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 complexity of 4 parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, the description is severely incomplete. Although an output schema exists (not shown), the description does not hint at return values or error conditions. The tool's legacy status is acknowledged but not elaborated.

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 0%, yet the description adds no meaning to the four parameters (file, title, filetype, content). It does not explain acceptable values, format, or behavior (e.g., whether content overwrites or appends). The parameter names alone are insufficient.

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 'Edit a file (legacy undocumented)' is a tautology that merely restates the tool's name without specifying what kind of file or what editing capabilities exist. It does not distinguish this tool from the many other file-related siblings like files_upload, files_remote_update, etc.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'legacy undocumented' label warns of instability but offers no practical instruction, such as preferring files_upload_v2 or files_info instead.

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