bookstack_attachments_update

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 details or replaces file content, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what happens to existing data not mentioned. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 purpose without unnecessary words. It directly states what the tool does, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place.

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 5 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain behavioral traits like permissions or side effects, and while the schema covers parameters, the overall context for safe and effective use is incomplete. A mutation tool without annotations requires more descriptive guidance.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'name' and 'file content' as examples, but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose: 'Update an attachment's details such as name or replace the file content.' It specifies the verb ('update'), resource ('attachment'), and scope ('details' and 'file content'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'bookstack_attachments_create' or 'bookstack_attachments_read', which would be needed for a score 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, when-not-to-use scenarios, or direct comparisons to sibling tools like 'bookstack_attachments_create' or 'bookstack_attachments_delete'. This leaves the agent without contextual usage instructions.

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