update_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'update', indicating mutation, but does not state whether the update is partial or full, if changes are reversible, required permissions, error behavior, or idempotency. The schema adds some detail (tags replace, fields nullable) but the description does not.

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 sentence of 14 words that is front-loaded and to the point. Every part is relevant, but it could be slightly expanded to include key behavioral notes without losing conciseness.

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 mutation tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return behavior, partial update semantics, validation rules, or error conditions, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 baseline is 3. The description lists the updatable fields but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain relationships between parameters or constraints beyond the field names.

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 it updates specific metadata fields (title, correspondent, document type, tags, created date) on a Paperless-ngx document. It uses a verb ('Update') and resource ('document metadata'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_document (read) and list_correspondents (list).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or compare with sibling tools. The description implies usage for updating metadata but lacks explicit contextual cues.

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