yuque_update_doc_from_file

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Update,' implying mutation, but omits important details like whether content is fully replaced, what happens to metadata, permissions required, or side effects. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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 with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core action. However, it is arguably too short for the tool's complexity, but that is a completeness issue rather than a conciseness issue.

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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description provides only a minimal statement of function, lacking context on how to identify the target document (e.g., slug vs doc_id), acceptable file formats, return behavior, or error scenarios. This is inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, but the description adds minimal parameter meaning. It hints at file_path via 'local file content' but provides no explanation for the other 7 parameters (namespace, slug, doc_id, title, format, public, new_slug). The description fails to compensate for the lack of 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Update document body from local file content.' It specifies the action (update) and resource (document body), and the mention of 'from local file content' distinguishes it from sibling tools like yuque_update_doc. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from alternatives or name sibling tools.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description simply states what the tool does without indicating when to choose it over alternatives such as yuque_update_doc or yuque_create_doc_from_file. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context.

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