akb_update_file

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

With no annotations to supply a safety or side-effect profile, the description carries this burden and does so well: the local file is hashed before transfer, identical content is skipped, URI is preserved, and stale writes are rejected with HTTP 409 rather than overwriting. This makes the tool's mutation semantics and failure mode transparent.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, then behavioral and concurrency guidance. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler.

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 six-parameter mutating tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains the operation, skip behavior, and 409 conflict handling. It does not describe the return value or mention permissions, but these are secondary to correct invocation and the schema covers all parameters.

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% and each parameter already has a solid description, so the description does not need to repeat definitions. It adds value by explaining the workflow rationale behind expected_content_hash and expected_version (concurrency protection from akb_get_file) and by noting that identical content is skipped, which clarifies the role of file_path.

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 names a concrete action and resource: 'Replace the bytes of an existing vault file while preserving its URI.' This distinguishes it from file creation or URI-changing tools like akb_put_file and akb_move, so an agent can tell what it is for without opening a schema.

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?

It gives clear context by stressing the target is an existing file whose URI is preserved. It also instructs when to use the optimistic-concurrency parameters ('Pass expected_content_hash and/or expected_version from akb_get_file to reject stale writes'), but it does not explicitly name sibling tools for alternative cases such as creating a new file or updating metadata.

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