update_project_yaml

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 includes an IMPORTANT warning about validating first, implying potential risks of updating without validation. However, it does not disclose specific consequences, side effects, or reversibility beyond that. Some behavior is inferred but not fully detailed.

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 two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and then key warnings. Every sentence adds value; no redundant information.

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 (map-of-content parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description appropriately directs users to validate first and consult get_editing_guide for full workflow and schema documentation. This is likely sufficient for an AI agent to invoke correctly, though it could explicitly state output expectations or failure modes. Overall quite complete.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both projectId and fileKeyToContent. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema states, such as the multi-line YAML format requirement mentioned in the schema itself. Therefore, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: 'Push YAML changes to a FlutterFlow project.' This distinguishes it from reading tools like get_project_yaml and validation tools like validate_yaml. The verb 'push' implies writing/updating, which matches the name.

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 explicitly directs users to call validate_yaml first and get_editing_guide before writing, giving clear when-to-use and sequence guidance. It names the alternative tools that should be used in conjunction, which is exemplary.

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