update_prd

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 only states 'create or update,' which signals mutation, but does not disclose overwrite behavior, side effects, whether files are created if missing, or any validation of the document type. For a mutation tool with no annotations, this is a significant transparency 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and it concisely captures the tool's core purpose and scope.

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?

The tool has simple parameters, and the schema covers them, plus an output schema exists. However, as a mutation tool without annotations, the description should disclose whether content is overwritten, and mention the project-root context for the path. The description is adequate but leaves these behavioral 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 coverage is 100% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it lists the allowed document types, but the schema already does that. No additional meaning is provided for path or content.

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 action (create or update) and resource (PRD document) and enumerates the allowed document types (PRD, VISION, SCOPE, REQUIREMENTS), which distinguishes it from generic file tools like write_file and read-only tools like get_prd. The ambiguity between 'create' and 'update' prevents a perfect score, as it doesn't clarify whether it always overwrites or only writes when absent.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as write_file, edit_file, or get_prd. The description does not state usage scenarios, exclusions, or prerequisites. It merely says 'create or update,' which implies usage but offers no context for selecting this tool over others.

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