update_document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation and idempotency profile is covered. The description adds little beyond that: it does not state whether omitted/nullable fields are left unchanged (partial vs full update), nor any auth or return behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the primary verb first and no filler. It is dense but every clause maps to a capability; the trailing 'set a timeline's calendar or a map's image' is slightly run-on but still compact and useful.

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 mutating tool with an annotations safety profile and no output schema, the main missing element is partial-update semantics: since most fields are nullable with null defaults, an agent cannot tell whether passing null clears or preserves a value. Safety and return-format gaps are covered by annotations and the absence of an output schema, but the update semantics gap is a real one.

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?

With schema description coverage at 63%, the description compensates well by mapping natural-language actions onto the terse parameters: rename→name, hide/show→is_hidden, full width→is_full_width, timeline calendar→calendar_id, map image→map_image_asset_id. The remaining params (document, resource, project) are already documented in the schema, so the description adds genuine meaning.

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 verb+resource combination (updates to a document) and enumerates the exact mutable facets: rename, hidden state, full width, timeline calendar, map image. It implicitly distinguishes from create_document/read_document/delete_document, though the phrasing 'a timeline's calendar or a map's image' slightly blurs whether it edits a timeline/map or the document's properties.

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 lists what can be changed but gives no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. There is no hint about when to prefer this over update_resource, update_timeline_event, update_map_feature, or update_timeline_lane, nor any prerequisite information.

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