outline_update_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers almost none. It doesn't clarify whether updates are partial (only changing provided fields) or full replacements, what happens if the ID doesn't exist, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 single sentence is efficient and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, given the lack of annotations and the mutation nature of the tool, it is overly terse—leaving crucial behavioral context unsaid that should have been included.

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 an update operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It fails to address error handling, partial vs. full update semantics, or the fact that only the 'id' parameter is required while others are optional.

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 baseline score applies. The description adds no parameter-specific context (e.g., explaining what 'publish' means in Outline's workflow or Markdown format requirements), but the schema is comprehensive enough that this isn't a critical gap.

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 resource ('existing document in Outline'). The word 'existing' provides implicit distinction from the sibling 'outline_create_document', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from delete or get operations.

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 provided on when to use this versus siblings like outline_create_document or outline_get_document. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing to retrieve the document ID first) or whether partial updates are supported.

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