update_shared_doc_content

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly reveals idempotency, that title/password/expiry are left unchanged, and that a doc id or URL is accepted. These are valuable behavioral traits beyond the basic operation, though return format or error conditions are not covered.

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 two sentences long, with the main action front-loaded and additional details (idempotency, input format) in the second sentence. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or redundancy.

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?

Despite having no annotations or output schema, the description provides key behavioral context: what the operation replaces, what remains unchanged, and idempotency for retries. It is reasonably complete for a simple mutation tool, though it omits return value details and does not explain updated_user.

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. It clarifies that doc_id_or_url accepts a doc id or URL and implies content is the replacement text, but it does not explain the updated_user parameter at all. Thus it adds partial meaning but leaves one parameter undocumented.

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 tool's purpose: 'Replace the entire content of an existing shared doc' with a specific verb and resource. It also notes what is not changed (title, password, expiry) and explicitly distinguishes itself from append_to_shared_doc, making it unambiguous.

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 provides usage guidance by contrasting with append_to_shared_doc ('unlike append_to_shared_doc...') and mentioning idempotency for safe retries. It also specifies accepted input format ('Accepts a doc id or URL'), giving clear context on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly list other alternatives or exclusions.

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