documents_update_documentRename a stored document by updating its title. Company-scoped: only the owning company's members may rename.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | No | ||
| companyId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. | |
| documentId | Yes | UUID value wrapper. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations: it clarifies that the operation is non-destructive (renaming a title) and discloses an authorization constraint (company membership). It does not contradict the 'destructiveHint: false' annotation, and the closed-world annotation is not affected.
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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and adds a key scoping detail without any redundant filler. Every word contributes meaning.
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 existence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation, the description covers the essential purpose and a key authorization constraint. It falls short of full completeness by not addressing the optional-title schema mismatch or mentioning potential error conditions (e.g., document not found, permission denied).
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 description clarifies that 'title' is the new title being set, and 'companyId' indicates the owning company. However, the schema marks title as optional despite the description implying it is necessary for renaming, and the ID parameters only have generic 'UUID value wrapper' descriptions, leaving some ambiguity about required 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 uses a specific verb ('rename') and resource ('document') and clearly states the operation is about updating the title. It distinguishes this from sibling document tools like create, get, and list by focusing on the rename action and adding company-scoping context.
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 says the tool is for renaming an existing document and explicitly notes the company-scoped restriction (only owning company's members may rename). It implies when to use it (when the title needs changing) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like create or list, or mention conditions like content updates.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tool pairs are nearly identical (formation_extract_cap_table / formation_extract_cap_table_ocr; formation_start_formation / formation_create_formation), and several tools lack descriptions, making selection ambiguous. The scale of 202 tools with overlapping summaries (e.g., multiple cap-table summary tools) compounds the confusion.
Dominant snake_case `module_verb_noun` pattern, but with notable deviations: `captable_send_safe_for_signature` uses an inconsistent abbreviation, `check_company_name_availability` lacks a module prefix, and `get_list_` vs `list_` prefixes are mixed. Readable but not fully consistent.
202 tools is far beyond any reasonable surface for a single server, even a broad platform. The sheer number overwhelms and makes tool discovery impractical; many tools are peripheral (ads metrics) to the core formation purpose.
The domain appears well covered: formation flows, cap-table lifecycle (import, close, simulate), accounting (journal entries, periods, schedules), cards, documents, and transactions all have CRUD or lifecycle operations. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no card deletion, no counterparty creation), but they are unlikely to cause dead ends.