document_update_security_scheme

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'update' without specifying whether it's a full replacement or partial update, what happens to unspecified fields, required permissions, or any destructive implications. This lack of detail makes it insufficient.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is concise and front-loaded, achieving clarity without verbosity.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not hint at return values or error behavior. For a mutation tool in a complex domain with many siblings, more context is needed (e.g., whether update is incremental, what succeeds, and failure cases). The description is incomplete.

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 100% with clear parameter descriptions for 'name', 'scheme', and 'session'. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond these. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.

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 states the action 'Update' and the resource 'an existing security scheme definition'. It matches the tool name and distinguishes from sibling tools like document_add_security_scheme and document_remove_security_scheme.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention that the security scheme must exist before updating, nor does it specify when not to use it. The sibling list implies separate add/remove tools, but the description lacks explicit usage context.

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