document

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does so partially: 'reset: Clear the current document and saved state' reveals state mutation, and 'update: Update document metadata' implies a side effect. However, it does not specify whether actions are irreversible, require authentication, or have rate limits. The description adds some behavioral context but is not exhaustive.

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 a front-loaded summary followed by a bullet list of actions. Each action has a concise one-line description. The length is appropriate for the complexity (multiple actions). Minor redundancy ('Create, ingest, and inspect documents' and then each action) but overall efficient and easy to scan.

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's complexity (multiple actions, 8 parameters, no annotations), the description covers actions but not the full context. It lacks return values for each action (though output schema exists), error handling, and lifecycle guidance (e.g., document state before actions). The description is adequate but has notable 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It links some parameters to actions: e.g., 'create' implies document_class, title, author; 'read' uses section. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema. However, it does not explain all parameters (e.g., date, abstract for update) or provide formats/constraints. The description partially fills the gap but leaves several parameters underspecified.

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 and resources: 'Create, ingest, and inspect documents.' It lists distinct actions (e.g., create, ingest, read, update, reset) that define its scope, and the verb 'document' differentiates it from sibling tools like edit, layout, and render.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks prerequisites, context for action selection, or exclusions. The list of actions implies usage context but does not clarify ordering or state dependencies (e.g., must create or ingest before reading).

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