clio_update_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly labels the operation as destructive and explains the two-step confirmation requirement via confirm_token. This goes beyond the schematic information and gives important safety guidance, though it could also mention what exactly gets overwritten or the side effects on the previous version.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the primary actions and the destructive nature. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key behavioral aspects: what operations are available and the confirmation requirement. It is complete enough for an agent to use correctly, though it could be slightly more explicit about the lifecycle of the confirm_token (e.g., how it is obtained after the first call).

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives meaning to 'name' (rename), 'new_version_path' (upload new version), and 'confirm_token' (required on second destructive call). It does not detail the exact format of the token or the path, but it provides the essential semantic mapping for the parameters.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: renaming a document or uploading a new version (overwrite). The verb 'rename' and phrase 'upload a new version' specify distinct operations, and the mention of 'overwrite' distinguishes this from sibling tools like clio_upload_document or clio_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 explains the two primary use cases (rename or overwrite) and explicitly warns that it is destructive and requires a confirm_token on the second call. While it does not name alternative tools, the context signals are clear enough for an agent to infer when to use this tool versus a plain upload or delete.

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