Update document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the destructive aspect: 'content replaces the entire body,' and warns against naive append attempts. It does not mention permissions or return values, but the main mutation risk is covered.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The critical replacement behavior is front-loaded, and the append workaround is provided as a short, actionable follow-up.

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 low-complexity mutation tool, the description covers the target, mutable fields, destructive semantics, and the safe append workflow. Since there are no annotations and no output schema, a bit more detail about response or error behavior would be needed for a 5.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the append workflow and reinforcing that content is a full replacement. The documentId role is obvious from the sentence structure, even though it lacks a schema description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Update a document title or content.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like create, get, and delete, and the replacement semantics reinforce what the operation does.

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?

Provides explicit guidance for the common append case: read with huly_get_document, merge, then write back. It does not explicitly state when to prefer create/delete, but the intended update workflow is clear enough.

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