karea_update_resource

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

The description discloses that content is replaced, not appended, which is key. However, it does not mention the ability to move the resource to a different folder (via folder parameter) or error handling. With no annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 with two sentences, each adding distinct information: the action and the replacement behavior. No redundant text.

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 description covers the main purpose but lacks details on partial updates (unspecified fields remain unchanged), error cases, and the structure of the returned resource. Given no output schema, more completeness would be helpful.

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%, providing basic parameter descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying the replacement semantics for content, beyond the schema's 'New text content'.

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 action (overwrite), the resource (text resource), and the scope (content and/or metadata). It distinguishes from siblings like create_resource (create new) and get_resource (read only) by specifying update by ID.

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?

The description implies when to use (to update an existing resource) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.

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