update_unit_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals that the tool mutates a document ('Patch') but doesn't disclose any side effects, permissions, reversibility, or return behavior. The only extra behavioral context is the date format hint, which is more parameter-related.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by a practical usage note. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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 patch operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and a key use case. However, it omits details like what the response contains, whether all fields are optional beyond required ids, and any prerequisites. It is adequate but lacks the richer context an agent might need for error handling or confirmation.

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 low (only documentDate has a description). The description compensates partially by naming the three updatable fields and specifying accepted date formats (YYYY-MM-DD or DD.MM.YYYY). However, it doesn't clarify unitId/docId semantics beyond the schema's type/format, and the documentDate schema description adds extra nuance ('not 31 Dec...'). Overall, it adds some value but not full compensation.

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 ('Patch') and the resource ('a trail document'), and lists the specific fields that can be updated (title, documentDate, notes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_unit_document and download_unit_document.

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?

Explicitly gives a concrete use case ('wrong letter date') and a directive ('do not ask the user to edit the UI'), which helps the agent decide when to invoke this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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