updateSpecFile

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that the request body cannot be empty, only one property can be updated at a time, multi-file specs have one root file, root file updates demote previous roots, and there's a 10MB size limit. These details clarify operational constraints that annotations don't cover, though it doesn't mention error handling or response format.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-pointed notes. Every sentence provides essential operational constraints without redundancy, making it easy to parse and front-loaded with critical 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description provides substantial behavioral context through its notes, covering request body constraints, file type logic, and size limits. However, it doesn't describe the response format or error conditions, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance parameter understanding. The notes about constraints apply to usage rather than parameter 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 clearly states the verb ('Updates') and resource ('an API specification's file'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'updateSpecProperties' or 'createSpecFile', which would require a more specific comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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 like 'updateSpecProperties' or 'createSpecFile'. While the notes offer operational constraints, they don't address the strategic context or prerequisites for invoking this tool, leaving the agent without usage differentiation.

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