document_intelligence_update_document

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the existing annotations. It only repeats the action name and mentions routing through a dispatcher, but fails to state that this modifies or potentially destructively updates a document. The destructiveHint annotation covers the concern, but the description adds no additional transparency.

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 succinct and to the point, comprising two sentences and concise parameter explanations. No unnecessary information or redundancy is present.

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 tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain what the action actually does to the document, how to construct meaningful message or inputs, what output to expect, or any prerequisites. The generic boilerplate leaves an agent without sufficient context to use it effectively.

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?

The description provides basic semantic meaning for both parameters: message is a free-text objective and inputs is an optional JSON string. However, it lacks any tool-specific detail about what kind of objective or structured inputs are expected for updating a document, leaving the semantics generic.

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 that the tool runs the 'update_document' action, indicating its purpose of updating a document. However, it relies on the tool name and generic 'domain agent action' phrasing rather than providing an independent, detailed purpose statement.

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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_document or search_documents. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is the appropriate choice.

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