Api managed documents update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether the body replaces or merges the document, what permissions are required, or what happens to omitted fields — the key behaviors for an update operation.

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?

A single short sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified rather than efficient — the brevity comes at the cost of all useful content.

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 mutation endpoint with no output schema and a fully undescribed free-form body payload, the definition leaves the agent unable to construct a valid call. Only the annotations give any behavioral footing.

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 0% and the body parameter is an opaque anyOf object with no declared properties, so the schema tells the agent nothing about acceptable fields. The description does not compensate at all — it never mentions id or body, or what content the body should carry.

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?

"API endpoint that allows managed documents to be viewed or edited" restates the endpoint name rather than stating that this tool updates an existing managed document identified by id. The phrase "viewed or edited" describes a ViewSet generically and does not tell an agent why to pick update over create, partial_update, or retrieve.

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 when-to-use guidance is given, and no sibling is named even though partial_update, update, create, and retrieve all exist alongside it. The agent must infer the PUT-vs-PATCH distinction entirely from the tool name.

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