update_documentation

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it updates files but does not mention what changes are made to existing content (e.g., append vs. replace is only in the schema), whether changes are reversible, or any permission requirements. For a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the primary action and target, then adds capability details and utility, earning every word's place.

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 5 optional parameters and no output schema, and the description covers the main behavior and auto-detection features. However, it omits details about return values, failure modes, or side effects, which for a mutating operation without annotations leaves the description incomplete for full agent decision-making.

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% for parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining auto-detection of sections and files, and by tying the tool to the 'current workflow,' which clarifies the role of section, doc_path, and workflow_id parameters beyond their schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Updates' and names the exact resources (CLAUDE.md, README.md), making it clear what the tool operates on. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sync_changelog which target changelogs, and generate_completion_report which generates reports.

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 provides a general use case ('useful for keeping docs in sync with development') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it give exclusions or prerequisites. It implies usage context but lacks direct comparison to sibling tools.

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