update_document

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), and the description adds non-obvious behavioral context: only the supplied name is changed, folder movement is rejected by IT Glue's API, and the body is untouched. These constraints are exactly the kind of disclosure an agent needs before calling a partial-update 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?

Front-loads the core action, then the negative constraints, then the alternative-tool routing. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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 two-param mutation tool with no output schema, the definition states what changes, what explicitly does not, and which tools to use instead. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description references 'the name you supply' generically but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Rename an IT Glue document.' It immediately narrows scope by declaring only the name changes, which distinguishes it from the content-mutating siblings. An agent can tell it apart from update_document_section without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Use update_document_section / create_document_section for content, then publish_document.' It also names an exclusion — this does not move the document between folders, with the underlying API reason. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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