update_cms_file

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that it updates existing content. It does not disclose whether the update overwrites the entire file, whether the rename parameter is supported, whether any data is destroyed, or what the return value looks like. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's primary action. There is no redundancy or unnecessary detail; every word contributes to the core message.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and moderate parameter complexity, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain whether the operation is reversible, whether it overwrites the full content, what the response contains, or that the 'name' parameter renames the file. An agent would need to infer much of this from the schema and context.

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 provides descriptions for all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states; 'update code content' mirrors the 'content' parameter description. Since the schema is complete, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool updates the code content of an existing CMS file, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from create_cms_file and other update tools. However, it omits the rename functionality exposed by the 'name' parameter, so the full scope is not captured.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that create_cms_file should be used for creating new files, nor does it describe any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent is left to infer usage solely from the tool name and basic action.

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