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

With destructiveHint=true already supplied by annotations, the description earns credit for explaining what actually changes: org makes the doc team-visible, private pulls it off the web and out of space pins. It also discloses an authorization constraint (creator-only for private) that annotations cannot express. It stops short of covering failure behavior or what an unfiled/echoed result looks like.

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 action set and followed by the two riskiest visibility cases. Dense but every clause carries information; the final clause about private visibility is slightly overloaded with three separate effects.

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 4-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the main effects of each updatable field plus the permission trap on private visibility. Remaining gap is that it never says the non-required fields are optional and what a no-op call does.

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 only 50%: doc_id and space_id are described in the schema, but title and visibility are not. The description compensates substantially for visibility by spelling out the consequences of both enum values, and for title by framing it as a rename. space_id filing is mentioned but the 'task chat auto-files into chat space' rule is stated only obliquely.

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 opens with concrete verbs tied to concrete resources: rename a doc/presentation/storyboard, file it in a space, set visibility. An agent immediately knows the operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling update_doc, which an agent must infer from name alone.

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 real operating guidance: 'ask your human first' before setting visibility org, and the precondition that only a creator can set private. The gap is that it never states when to choose update_doc_info over update_doc, nor whether partial updates (title only, space only) are the expected pattern.

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