hermes_update_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 of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that this is a mutation, limits the operation to published documents, and enumerates supported fields and valid statuses, but it does not describe side effects, permission requirements, list-replacement semantics, or return behavior. The schema covers some parameter-level replacement behavior, but the tool description itself remains shallow on consequences.

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 short and front-loaded with the primary action and scope. The final sentence repeating the valid statuses is slightly redundant with the parenthetical list earlier, which keeps it from a perfect conciseness score, but overall it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 tool with nine parameters and full schema coverage, the description provides sufficient scoping: it names the resource, lists mutable fields, gives valid statuses, and routes draft usage away. It falls slightly short of fully complete because there is no output schema and the description does not state what the update returns or disclose any side effects beyond the update itself.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all nine parameters in detail, including the custom_fields name/type/display_name constraints. The tool description only repeats field names and valid statuses, adding no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update a published document's metadata in Hermes.' It lists exactly which metadata fields are supported and explicitly distinguishes this tool from hermes_update_draft, so an agent can identify what it does without relying on the name alone.

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?

It explicitly states the intended scope ('published document') and gives a direct when-not-to-use instruction: 'For drafts (WIP), use hermes_update_draft instead.' This provides clear routing to the main sibling alternative while other siblings are distinguishable by name and purpose.

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