update_documentation

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Update documentation content from source', which is vague. It does not mention side effects, whether changes are destructive, what the 'force' flag controls, or any prerequisites. This leaves significant ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence that is easy to read and not verbose. While it is under-specified in content, conciseness itself is high, and every word serves the basic purpose.

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 tool's complexity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too incomplete. It does not explain what 'source' refers to, how the update is performed, potential side effects, or return values, leaving the agent without enough context to use it safely or effectively.

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 descriptions for both 'name' and 'force', so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning with the phrase 'from source', but it does not clarify how 'name' relates to the source or explain the 'force' behavior 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'documentation content', indicating it modifies existing documentation. It distinguishes from 'add_documentation' by implying an existing target, though it lacks explicit sibling differentiation or elaboration on what 'source' means.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_documentation' or 'search_documentation'. There are no conditions, exclusions, or scenario examples, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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