ghl_media_update_file

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

The description only says 'Updates', which implies mutation but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether the update is partial or full replacement, what happens on error, or required permissions. Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint: false, etc.) and provide no additional context.

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 very short (3 lines) and front-loaded with the core action. The endpoint line may be unnecessary for an AI agent, but overall it is efficient with no wasted words.

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?

Given that there is no output schema and the tool is an update operation, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the response format, whether the update is idempotent, or how the body requirements affect usage (e.g., all fields required suggests full update).

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter names and schema; it does not explain the purpose of altType or altId, or provide examples of usage.

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 'Updates a single file or folder by ID', specifying the verb (update), resource (file or folder), and scope (single, by ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ghl_media_bulk_update_files which updates multiple files, but does not explicitly mention this differentiation.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the file/folder must exist, or scenarios where this tool is preferred over other media tools like ghl_media_upload_file or ghl_media_delete_file.

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