Update Capacities object

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the key partial-update semantic: 'Supplied fields replace that property; omitted fields stay unchanged.' This goes beyond annotations and clarifies idempotent behavior. It does not cover error cases, but the annotations + schema reduce that burden.

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 sentences, each carrying essential information: the update targets plus the replacement behavior and the pointer to body-content tools. No filler or repetition of schema detail.

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 the complex nested schema and output schema, the description covers the key prerequisites, the partial-update behavior, and tool alternatives. It does not exhaustively discuss error behavior, but the schema and annotations supply parameter-level and safety details, so the description is adequately complete for agent decision-making.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description supplements it by clarifying replacement semantics for fields and collections with 'Supplied fields replace that property; omitted fields stay unchanged,' which the schema alone does not state. This adds meaningful semantic value for the fields/collections parameters.

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 explicitly states the verb and resource: 'Update an object's title, writable typed properties, or collections.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_block and append_content by scoping exactly what it modifies and by directing body-content work to alternatives.

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 says 'after loading its live structure schema,' which establishes a prerequisite for safe use, and explicitly names alternatives: 'Use append_content or update_block for body content.' This is direct when-to-use guidance vs. siblings.

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