update_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains how empty strings clear fields, that tags use names vs IDs depending on parameter, and how create_missing affects behavior. This goes beyond the schema and gives agents important operational details, though it doesn't address permissions, reversibility, or partial update semantics explicitly.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a compact list of parameter notes. Each note earns its place; formatting is scannable. Minor deduction for not using explicit markdown headers or bullet symbols, but the structure is effective.

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?

Given 7 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the most operationally critical details: how identifiers work, how clearing works, and create_missing semantics. It doesn't state return value behavior, which is the main gap, but the update semantics are well enough specified for reliable invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for the bare schema. It explains the meaning of correspondent/document_type, add_tags/remove_tags, and create_missing, including the clearing behavior and name/ID flexibility. This adds significant value over parameter names and types, though it doesn't fully describe all edge cases for every parameter.

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 updates a document's title, correspondent, type, and tags, with specific verbs and target resources. It distinguishes this from siblings like get_document, download_document, and search_documents by focusing on mutation of existing document metadata.

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?

The description implies usage for updating document metadata but does not explicitly state when to use it versus upload_document or list_tags. It does not provide exclusions or alternatives, but the mutation intent is clear enough for an agent to infer typical use cases.

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