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

The description adds important behavioral detail beyond the annotations: partial updates are scoped to passed fields, filing under a collection detaches from any project, and attaching to a project unfiles it. These are non-obvious side effects that an agent needs to know before invoking the tool. It does not cover auth or return behavior, but the mutation semantics are well disclosed.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the first states scope, the second explains partial-update behavior, and the third covers the non-obvious relationship side effects. The most important behavioral constraint is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 7-parameter surface and no output schema, the description covers the essential decision points: what can change, that it is partial, and the collection/project mutual exclusion. It could mention return values or error behavior, but the schema and annotations already cover parameter constraints and safety hints.

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 high at 86%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by naming the affected fields in plain language and by clarifying how parent/project/collection parameters interact, which the schema does not explain. The use of 'body' instead of the schema's 'content' is a minor wording mismatch but still understandable.

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 clearly identifies the resource (document) and the specific fields that can be changed: title, body, collection, parent, project, or visibility. It is distinct from create_doc and delete_doc, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling move_doc, which also handles repositioning.

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 gives clear usage context: only fields explicitly passed are modified, which tells an agent this is a partial-update tool. It also explains the interaction between collection and project fields, helping the agent anticipate side effects. It does not name alternatives like move_doc for pure moves, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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