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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden and delivers real value: an authorization requirement (creator only) and state-based preconditions (signed/out-for-signature blocked). It stops short of covering failure behavior, idempotency, or whether any other document state changes.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core operation front-loaded and the constraints following immediately. Every clause carries actionable information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the description covers purpose, permissions, and blocked states. The remaining gap is parameter-level guidance for the nested identifier objects, which is only partly covered by the schema.

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 67%; the two UUID wrapper params are documented in the schema and the description adds only that 'title' is the field being changed. It does not clarify that companyId/documentId are identifiers or how the nested wrappers should be supplied, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rename a stored document') and importantly narrows the operation to title-only, correcting the broad 'update_document' name. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like documents_get_document or documents_delete_*.

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?

Gives explicit when-not conditions: only the creating member may rename, and signed or out-for-signature documents cannot be renamed via the assistant. It even supplies the fallback action ('tell the user to rename it in Lovie'), which is strong guidance, though no sibling tool alternative is named.

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