update_archive_document

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

The only annotation is idempotentHint=true, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses patch-style semantics (only changed fields are passed, implying unmentioned fields are preserved), but says nothing about required permissions, what happens on unknown field names, or whether nested objects merge or replace — all relevant given the nested `data` object.

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 the update semantics front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves room for a clause on field scope without becoming bloated.

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?

This is a mutation tool with a free-form nested object parameter, no output schema, and only an idempotency annotation. An agent still cannot tell which document fields are updatable, whether nested data merges or replaces, or what a successful response contains — substantial gaps for this complexity level.

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 only 33% and the `data` property is a bare additionalProperties object with no documentation, so the description's "pass only the fields to change" meaningfully clarifies how `data` should be populated. However, it never names which fields are accepted or explains the `id`/`company_id` distinction, leaving the largest parameter only partially compensated.

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 (Modifica) and resource (documento d'archivio), which cleanly separates it from the sibling create_/delete_/list_/get_archive_document tools by name alone. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling in the text, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"passa solo i campi da cambiare" gives implicit usage guidance: this is a partial-update, so callers should send a delta rather than a full document. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance, no mention of create_archive_document for new records, and no prerequisite or fallback path.

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