AI FileSystem MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states 'update' implying mutation but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether changes are atomic/reversible, error handling, or side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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?

Extremely concise with a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. No wasted words or redundant information—every part earns its place efficiently.

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 annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% coverage), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavior, error cases, return values, and practical usage, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 50% (only 'path' has a description; 'updates' array items lack descriptions). The description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain 'specific parts' mapping to the 'updates' array or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage but no compensation from the description.

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 'Update specific parts of a file' clearly states the verb ('update') and resource ('file'), and specifies scope ('specific parts'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'write_file' (full overwrite) and 'modify_code' (code-specific). However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling distinction, keeping it at 4 rather than 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'write_file' (full file replacement) or 'modify_code' (code-specific changes). The description implies partial updates but doesn't provide explicit usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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