update_ignore_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the action and file types, but omits behavioral traits: whether patterns are appended or replaced, whether .gitignore is modified or .mindmapignore is created/both, whether the change is persisted immediately, or if it affects scanning retroactively. This is insufficient for safety-aware usage.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and file support. It is concise but may be overly terse given the lack of annotations; a bit more detail would be beneficial.

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?

With no annotations, the description must provide safety and behavioral context. It does not indicate whether the operation is destructive, persistent, or reversible. For a tool that modifies project files, this is a significant gap. The schema is well-covered, but the description fails to compensate for missing annotations.

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 has 100% coverage: both parameters have descriptions with examples and defaults. The tool description adds minimal new information beyond restating the schema terms. Baseline is 3, and the description provides no additional semantics.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Update', the resource 'ignore patterns for file scanning', and mentions support for two file types (.gitignore and .mindmapignore). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like test_ignore_patterns (testing) and update_mindmap (different target). However, it could more directly differentiate its scope.

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, such as test_ignore_patterns or manual editing. It does not specify prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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