update_document

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

The description discloses two key behaviors: partial updates and strict validation of known document types. However, with no annotations, it omits important context such as side effects, permissions, error handling, or reversibility. It adds some value but falls short of full 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant information.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify return values, error scenarios, and relationship to specific document-type tools. It partially does so but remains incomplete for a mutation tool, especially given the sibling tools that suggest varied document types.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already documents their meaning. The description repeats the partial-update behavior that is already present in the fields parameter description, adding no new parameter-specific semantics.

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 specifies a clear verb-resource pair: 'Update fields on an existing document.' It also adds detail with 'Only the provided keys are changed,' which clarifies partial-update semantics. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_document and delete_document.

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 implies usage for modifying existing documents but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. No exclusions or alternative tool references are given, so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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