update_shared_doc_title

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this requires specific permissions, whether the change is reversible, what happens on failure, or any side effects. The only behavioral constraint disclosed is the non-empty title requirement.

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 efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose clearly. However, the brevity comes at the cost of missing important behavioral and parameter details.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, this description is insufficient. It should explain permission requirements, error behavior for non-existent docs, and clarify the roles of updated_user and doc_id_or_url. The single line leaves too much for the agent to infer.

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 for the 3 undocumented parameters. The description mentions 'title' which maps to new_title, but leaves doc_id_or_url and updated_user completely unexplained beyond the schema. The non-empty constraint adds value for new_title, but the other two params get no additional meaning.

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 states a specific verb+resource action (update a shared doc title) with a clear constraint (must be non-empty). It distinguishes itself from siblings reasonably, since other tools like create/append/extend/delete are clearly different operations, though it could name the siblings explicitly.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., doc must exist, user must have permission), nor does it exclude cases where this tool would be inappropriate. The description is purely declarative with no usage context.

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