postmd_update_document_from_file

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds one useful fact (the file is read on the MCP server host, not the client), but it never states that this is a mutating/overwriting operation, what permissions are required, or what side effects occur. The 'Same as postmd_update_document' reference is implicit, not a substitute for explicit behavior.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the key selection fact (server-local filePath variant of postmd_update_document) is front-loaded.

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 schema carries most parameter meaning, and naming the sibling links to the broader behavior, but a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema needs at least one sentence on overwrite/permissions/result. The definition is enough for selecting the tool but not fully enough for invoking it safely without opening the sibling description.

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 high (78%) and the individual parameter descriptions already document filePath, fileName defaulting, viewerStyle fallback, date formats, and clear booleans. The description reinforces that filePath is the Markdown source but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Names the sibling tool and frames itself as the same operation with a file-based content source, which distinguishes it from postmd_update_document. It stops short of being fully self-contained because the core 'update a document' semantics are inherited from that sibling rather than stated directly.

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?

Identifies postmd_update_document as the alternative and explains the decision criterion: content is read from a server-local filePath instead of passed inline. It doesn't spell out exact scenarios or exclusions, but the selection cue is clear.

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