update_reference_doc

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the optimistic concurrency mechanism, conflict resolution strategy, and partial update behavior. It does not mention side effects or authorization, but it adequately explains the mutation pattern.

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 three sentences: purpose, conflict handling, and instruction for fields. Each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. Well-front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema and three parameters, the description covers the core update workflow with conflict handling. It could mention the response (e.g., returns updated draft), but the absence is acceptable since the tool likely returns the updated object. The description is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: it explains that 'expectedVersion' should be obtained via a prior read, and that 'fields' should contain only changed fields in camelCase. This provides critical usage context.

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 ('a reference_doc draft'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'create_reference_doc' or 'delete_reference_doc' by specifically mentioning 'draft', aligning with the update of an existing draft.

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 explicit steps: read first to get 'expectedVersion', handle 409 conflicts by rereading and retrying, and pass only changed fields. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the instructions are clear and actionable.

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