update_api_doc_from_controller

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It states the update action but does not explain whether the existing page content is replaced, merged, or preserved, nor does it mention authentication requirements or failure behavior. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no padding or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It fails to disclose the overwrite/merge behavior of the update or provide any operational context such as whether the page must exist or what happens to unspecified content. Parameter documentation is solid, but the behavioral context is incomplete.

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 100%, so every parameter already has a meaningful description in the schema. The tool description adds little beyond echoing the controller-file concept already present in controllerPath. Per baseline, a 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation load.

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 names a specific verb ('Update'), a specific resource ('existing API documentation page'), and a specific input source ('NestJS controller files'). This distinguishes it clearly from the sibling create_api_doc_from_controller and from Swagger-based tools like sync_swagger_to_confluence.

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 is provided about when to choose this tool versus alternatives such as update_api_doc or create_api_doc_from_controller. The agent must infer from the tool name and description that this is for updating existing pages from controller files, with no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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