update_agents_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. It mentions reading a template and auto-detecting the directory, but does not disclose whether the file is overwritten, merged, or created if missing, nor any permissions or failure modes. As a mutation tool, more transparency is needed.

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?

Three sentences, tightly written with the main action first. No redundant words or repetition, every sentence adds value.

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?

For a single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the core workflow (read template, update AGENTS.md) and default directory handling. However, it omits what happens to existing AGENTS.md content and does not explain the prerequisites (e.g., presence of .context-master), leaving some gaps.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that the optional projectPath defaults to the current working directory, clarifying behavior beyond the schema's simple 'if not provided' phrasing.

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?

'Update project's AGENTS.md file' clearly states the action and target resource. The description adds that it reads a template from .context-master, distinguishing it from sibling tools like initialize_context_master or add_project_context. Purpose is unambiguous.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. However, the description implies it is used to apply Context Master instructions to the current project's AGENTS.md, which is a distinct use case among the siblings.

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