update_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully discloses behavior: replaces content on disk, triggers FTS5 re-index, returns metadata with token counts, and operates locally without external auth or rate limits. This is comprehensive for a mutating tool.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence adds meaningful context (replacement behavior, re-indexing, return value, alternatives, param specifics) with no filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, effects, return value, alternative tool, and parameter constraints. It is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% with basic field descriptions ('File ID', 'New content'), but the description adds essential semantics: 'id' must be a valid integer, and 'content' is the complete markdown string that will replace the file. This clarifies constraints beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update the entire content of an existing file by its ID.' It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'update_file_section' by explicitly contrasting full-file replacement vs. section modification.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'If you only need to modify a single section without replacing the entire file, use "update_file_section" instead to save context budget.' Also notes local operation with no auth or rate limits.

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