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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that content is untouched and that no version snapshot is created, but it omits permissions, reversibility, and what happens to unspecified metadata fields.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The main action and the key caveat about version snapshots are stated immediately and efficiently.

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?

The description is adequate for basic invocation with a documentId plus metadata fields, and it covers the most important behavioral constraint. However, it does not state whether at least one metadata field is required, what the response looks like, or whether changing path moves the document, leaving some gaps given the lack of an output schema and annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it mostly repeats the property names (title, path, tags) without explaining their semantics. It does not clarify path behavior, whether tags replace or append, or the format of documentId, leaving significant meaning to inference.

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 and resource ('Update document metadata') and names the exact fields involved: title, path, tags. It also differentiates from content-focused document tools by explicitly stating 'without changing content' and 'No version snapshot is created.'

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 clearly establishes this tool is for metadata-only changes and implicitly excludes content edits, giving the agent a clear boundary. It does not name the alternative tool for content changes (e.g., update_document), but the context is clear enough for selection.

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