set_document_properties

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Only provided fields are changed' is genuinely valuable partial-update semantics, but it says nothing about permission requirements, whether changes persist without a save call, or what happens when documentId is omitted.

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?

Two tight sentences with the resource scope front-loaded and the mutation semantics immediately after. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse given the tool's surface area.

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 7-param metadata setter with a fully documented schema, this covers the essentials: what is set and that unspecified fields are untouched. The gaps are the save/persistence question and documentId targeting, which keep it below a 5.

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 the baseline is 3. The description merely re-lists the same six field names already documented in the schema and says nothing extra about documentId, which is the parameter with the most consequential behavior (optional when only one document is connected).

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 and resource ('Set document metadata') and enumerates exactly which fields are affected, so it is clearly distinguishable from the read-side sibling get_document_properties. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the write counterpart to get_document_properties, but the description never says when to prefer it, whether a document must first be selected via list_documents, or whether save_document must follow. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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