upsertDocumentProperty

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions mutation ('create/update') and scoping ('in the current project'), but fails to disclose overwrite behavior, idempotency, error conditions, or prerequisites. The overwriteExisting parameter exists in schema but is not explained in the description.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no superfluous details. It is concise and well-structured.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple upsert tool but leaves gaps: 'current project' is undefined, overwrite behavior is implicit via schema default rather than described, and no failure modes are mentioned. Combined with the schema it is usable, but it could be more complete.

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% for all parameters, providing detailed descriptions (e.g., propertyName examples). The description itself adds no additional parameter information, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool 'Create a new document property or update an existing property value in the current project'. The verb 'Create or update' precisely captures upsert semantics, and the resource 'document property' with scope 'current project' distinguishes it from read-only sibling tools like getDocumentProperties.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or point to getDocumentProperties for retrieval. Usage is only implied by the verb 'create or update', leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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