webdav_update_remote_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool updates a file with new content, implying a write/mutation operation, but lacks critical details: whether it overwrites or appends, authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if file doesn't exist), or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Update an existing file') and includes essential details ('on a remote WebDAV server with new content'). There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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's complexity (a mutation operation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values, nor does it fully explain parameters. For a WebDAV file update tool, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'new content' and 'path' implicitly, but adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property names. It doesn't explain parameter formats (e.g., path syntax, content encoding), constraints, or examples. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is inadequate.

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'), resource ('an existing file on a remote WebDAV server'), and what is being updated ('with new content'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'webdav_create_remote_file' by specifying 'existing file' and from 'webdav_edit_remote_file' by focusing on content replacement rather than editing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'webdav_move_remote_item' or 'webdav_delete_remote_item'), keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for directories), or compare to siblings like 'webdav_edit_remote_file' or 'webdav_create_remote_file'. Without any usage context, the agent must infer from tool names alone, which is insufficient.

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