update_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'Update a document.' It does not disclose that the tool can either replace or append content based on the 'append' parameter, nor does it mention potential destructive effects or response behavior. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single short sentence with no fluff, so it is concise. However, it is under-specified to the point of providing minimal utility. While it is front-loaded, the lack of content makes it less useful than a slightly longer but more informative description.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no context about how the update works, when to use it, what the parameters mean in combination, or what the response will be. The agent would have to rely entirely on the schema and external knowledge.

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 the parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline expectation but does not go further to explain parameter interplay or edge cases.

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 'Update a document' clearly states the verb and resource, but is very generic and does not specify what aspects can be updated or how. It does not distinguish the tool from other update-like tools in the sibling list, such as update_project or update_knowledge, beyond the resource type.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_document or delete_document. The description does not mention append mode, replacement behavior, or any preconditions, leaving the agent without context for appropriate selection.

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