Edit file

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

The annotations provide idempotentHint and openWorldHint but do not specify destructive behavior. The description adds that it edits a file name or active version, but offers no further context about side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is reversible. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 brief sentence with no redundant information. It is appropriately concise for a simple edit operation.

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 a freeform body object and no output schema, yet the description provides no detail about accepted body properties, the response format, or prerequisites. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the uuid or the body object. The mention of 'file name or active version' hints at body fields but does not explicitly map them, leaving the agent without clear parameter semantics for a freeform body object.

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 edits a file's name or active version, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like kommo_files_delete, kommo_files_restore, and kommo_files_versions_get.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this when you need to modify a file's name or active version. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or mention of alternatives such as kommo_files_update or kommo_files_versions_get.

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