update_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false; the description usefully confirms the non-destructive nature ("without deleting it"), which supports destructiveHint=false. However, it does not disclose that "off" maps to setting active=false, whether the state is reversible, or that idempotency is false despite this looking like a set operation.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operations and no filler. The second sentence largely restates the first, which costs a little density but adds the useful non-destructive qualifier.

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 3-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool this is close to adequate, but gaps remain: "toggle" is ambiguous next to a boolean `active` setter, reactivation is never mentioned, and partial-update behavior is unstated. An agent could call it correctly on the common path but may misread toggle semantics.

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 only 33% (only id is documented), so the description must compensate: it does map "name" to rename and "switch it off" to the active flag, adding real meaning over the bare schema. It still does not explain that active also accepts true (reactivation), that omitted fields are untouched, or the maxLength/format constraints on name.

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?

"Rename or toggle a document" gives a concrete verb pair and a clear resource, and the follow-up sentence clarifies the two supported mutations (name change, deactivation). It implicitly differentiates from delete_document via "without deleting it", though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

"Switch it off without deleting it" implies the when-to-use case (deactivate instead of destroy), but there is no explicit statement of when to use this over delete_document, update on other resources, or how to reverse the deactivation. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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