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. It clearly explains the destructive nature ('replaces the document content rather than just adding to it'), provides a workflow requirement ('need to first read the document'), and describes the append functionality. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, important note, usage guidelines, args, returns) and front-loaded key information. However, the 'when you need to' list includes redundant items ('Edit or update document content' and 'Fix errors or add information to documents' overlap), and the 'append' functionality is mentioned twice, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 mutation tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job explaining purpose, usage, parameters, and behavioral constraints. However, it doesn't describe the return value ('Result message confirming update') in detail or mention potential error cases, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 fully compensate. It provides detailed parameter explanations beyond the schema: 'document_id: The document ID to update', 'title: New title (if None, keeps existing title)', 'text: New content (if None, keeps existing content)', 'append: If True, adds text to the end of document instead of replacing'. This adds crucial semantic meaning to all four 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 states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('modifies', 'replaces', 'edit', 'update', 'change', 'append', 'fix', 'add') and resources ('existing document's title or content'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_document' (creation vs. modification) and 'read_document' (write vs. read).

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 provides explicit usage contexts ('when you need to' list with four bullet points) and mentions the prerequisite of reading the document first for updates. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name specific alternatives among siblings (e.g., 'create_document' for new documents vs. 'update_document' for existing ones).

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