document_intelligence_write_document

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions routing and authentication scope but omits whether the action is destructive, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. The name implies a write operation, but no details about what gets written or mutated.

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 short and reasonably concise, but it front-loads the tautological action name rather than the core purpose. The parameter list is clear but could be better integrated into a structured format.

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 large set of sibling tools in the document_intelligence domain, the description lacks critical context such as how `write_document` differs from create/update actions, what types of documents it handles, and whether it requires a specific folder or template. The presence of an output schema mitigates return value ambiguity, but the purpose and behavior are still underdefined.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description partially compensates by explaining `message` as 'Free-text objective' and `inputs` as 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs'. However, these explanations are vague and do not specify format constraints or examples.

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 restates the tool name ('Run the document_intelligence domain agent action `write_document`') without explaining what 'write_document' does (e.g., create, update, or replace a document). It does not differentiate from sibling tools like document_intelligence_create_report or document_intelligence_create_slide_deck.

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 is provided on when to use this tool instead of other document_intelligence tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternatives.

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