document_intelligence_update_document

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions routing under JWT/tenant/company scope but does not disclose behavioral traits like mutation effects, idempotency, or whether the action is interpreted by an AI. The 'message' parameter is described as 'free-text objective,' hinting at natural language processing, but this is not clearly stated.

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, with a front-loaded purpose statement and parameter descriptions. No unnecessary repetition. It is appropriately sized for the tool complexity.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain how to identify the target document (e.g., via message or inputs), what the expected outcome is, or the role of the domain agent. The existence of output schema is not leveraged, and critical information is missing.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains 'message' as free-text objective and 'inputs' as optional structured inputs, which adds some context beyond the bare schema. However, descriptions are still vague (e.g., what constitutes a 'structured input' format) and do not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 states it runs the 'update_document' domain agent action, but does not specify what updating a document entails (e.g., modifies existing document content or metadata). The purpose is somewhat vague and relies on the action name, which could be clearer. It distinguishes from sibling create tools only implicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like document_intelligence_write_document or create tools. No prerequisites mentioned, such as requiring an existing document ID. The description only notes authentication routing, not usage context.

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