Update Document Icon

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds value by detailing the acceptable input types, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, permissions, or default behavior (e.g., whether setting an icon replaces existing).

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 that front-loads the core action ('Set or clear the sidebar icon') followed by concise input instructions. There is no fluff; every word adds value.

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 simple mutation tool with three parameters (two required, one optional) and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and input formats. A minor gap is the lack of explanation for the optional workspaceId parameter, but the tool's context (workspace environment) likely makes it inferable.

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?

The input schema covers the icon parameter with a detailed description, and docId has a simple description. WorkspaceId lacks description. The tool description reinforces the allowed types but adds minimal new information beyond the schema. Given 67% schema description coverage (high), the baseline is 3.

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: 'Set or clear the sidebar icon (the Notion-style emoji slot) on a document.' It specifies the action (set/clear), the resource (document icon), and the allowed inputs (emoji string, full object, null). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool get_doc_icon, which reads the icon.

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 instructs on what to pass ('emoji string, a full icon object, or null to remove it'), implying when to use the tool—to update or remove an icon. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like update_folder_icon, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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