update_knowledge_file

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

The description adds the [mutation] tag and explains that sending the content parameter triggers replacement in OpenAI and re-indexing in the Vector Store. It also advises against sending content if only changing title/description. With no annotations, this provides useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 plus a [mutation] tag, front-loading the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 mutation behavior, parameter constraints, and special actions (re-indexing). It lacks error scenarios or prerequisites, but given no output schema, it is fairly complete for a mutation tool.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description reiterates the content constraint already in the schema and adds re-indexing info. This offers marginal additional value, so a baseline 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 the tool updates a knowledge file's title, description, and/or content, specifying that content editing is limited to text file types. This distinguishes it from other tools but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like edit_knowledge_snippet.

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 implicit usage guidance by noting that content can only be updated for certain file types and warns not to send content if only changing title/description. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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