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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the EIP-191 wallet signature auth requirement and the 100 KB content size limit, providing meaningful behavioral context. It does not explicitly state that existing content is overwritten or describe failure modes, which would be stronger, but it adds significant value beyond the raw 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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by a brief auth note and a well-structured Args list. Every line conveys necessary information without unnecessary fluff, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (7 required params, auth requirements, many siblings), the description covers the core purpose, auth mechanism, every parameter, and a size limit. It references a sibling for auth details and leaves return values to the output schema, making it complete for an agent to use effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description's 'Args:' section provides detailed explanations for all 7 parameters, including the signature format, checksummed address, path example, and content size limit. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of 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 states 'Update an existing document in the agent's workspace' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'existing' (vs create) and 'update' (vs delete/list), making the tool's role clear.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to update an existing document. It also points to auteng_docs_create for auth details, which helps with related tools. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with delete/list alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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