Update issued document

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

Annotations already disclose that this is not read-only and is potentially destructive. The description adds valuable behavior beyond the annotations: the partial update behavior ('Only the fields provided in data are changed') clarifies that unspecified fields are not wiped, which is essential for understanding the destructive scope. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The second sentence adds essential usage guidance without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it both concise and highly informative.

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 moderately complex update tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, partial update behavior, and a necessary prerequisite. The rich input schema already documents all parameters, so the description does not need to repeat that. It could mention error handling or return values, but those are not critical given the schema completeness and annotations.

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 100%, so all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the `data` object is a partial update (only provided fields changed), which affects how all nested fields inside `data` should be interpreted. This is a key semantic that the schema itself does not explicitly state.

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 states a specific action ('Update an existing issued document') with a clear resource, and distinguishes itself from create/delete/get operations by focusing on modification. It also clarifies partial update semantics ('Only the fields provided in data are changed'), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 context by instructing the user to fetch the document first with get_issued_document to see its current state, which is a clear prerequisite for safe updates. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (like create or delete), but the naming and sibling tool list make those distinctions obvious. The instruction gives clear when-to-use guidance without exclusions.

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