update_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'update file metadata.' It does not explain whether the update is a merge or full replacement, whether it requires special permissions, what happens if the file does not exist, or what the response contains.

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 extremely terse at four words, which is under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness. It lacks any explanatory detail that would justify its brevity, failing to use the space to convey needed context.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool's complexity (nested object parameter, many sibling tools, no annotations) requires more contextual information. The description omits usage context, parameter semantics, and behavioral details, making it inadequate for safe and correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain the meaning of file_data, whether it is a partial update or the entire metadata object, or what keys are allowed. The ambiguity of file_data as an arbitrary object with additionalProperties is not resolved by the description.

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 action (update) and the resource (file metadata), which is specific and understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on metadata rather than file content, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any basis for selecting this tool over other update tools among the many siblings.

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