update_gist

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly explains how updates work (including file deletion via null values and the fact that omitted files remain unchanged), which are meaningful side-effect behaviors. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, irreversibility, or rate limits, leaving some gaps 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 concise and well-structured. It opens with a one-sentence purpose, then details specific behavior (file update/rename/delete, unchanged omissions), and closes with a docs link. Every sentence adds value without fluff or 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 key aspects needed to use the tool correctly given its moderate complexity. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain the return value, but it does provide a docs link for reference. The omission of response details is a minor gap, but overall the description is sufficient for a gist update operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description reiterates the file update and delete semantics (e.g., 'supply its current filename as the key with a null value') but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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's purpose: 'Update an existing gist.' It specifies the exact operations possible (change description, update/rename/delete files) and distinguishes from siblings like create_gist, delete_gist, and get_gist by focusing on modification of an existing resource.

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 the tool—when an existing gist needs modification—and provides concrete usage patterns (e.g., 'supply its current filename as the key with new content'). It does not explicitly exclude alternatives (e.g., 'use create_gist for new gists'), but the purpose is clear enough relative to sibling tools.

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