edit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the re-fetch behavior when url changes, which is a useful side effect. However, it does not mention whether the update is destructive, if permissions are needed, or error scenarios. The disclosure is adequate but incomplete.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a practical tip. Every sentence is necessary and free of extraneous information.

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 edit tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and a key behavioral note. However, it lacks mention of what the tool returns (e.g., updated entry or success status) and error handling, which are gaps given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'new unique llms name', 'new unique llms.txt url'). Thus it meets the baseline but adds no extra value.

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 it updates name, url, or description of an llms.txt entry by id. This distinguishes it from sibling tools: add (create), del (delete), list (list all), view_content (view). It specifies the resource and the action, making it easy for an AI to select correctly.

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 explicitly advises calling `list` first if the id is unknown, providing clear prerequisite guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternatives beyond the implicit context of having the id.

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