doc_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it shows update operations through examples, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like: whether this is a mutating operation (implied but not stated), what permissions are required, whether updates are atomic, what happens on conflicts, error conditions, or what the response format looks like. The examples help but leave critical operational context unspecified.

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 clear sections: purpose statement, parameter list, and two practical examples. Every sentence serves a purpose, with the examples being particularly valuable for understanding different update modes. The Chinese-only text is concise and focused, though the formatting could be slightly cleaner.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basics but has significant gaps. It covers the core update functionality and parameter purposes through examples, which is valuable. However, it lacks information about error handling, response format, performance characteristics, concurrency behavior, and detailed parameter constraints - important context for a document update operation in what appears to be a search/indexing system.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by listing all 6 parameters with brief explanations and providing two detailed examples that demonstrate how 'doc' and 'script' parameters work differently. The examples clarify that 'doc' is for partial field updates while 'script' allows programmatic updates, adding significant semantic value beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain 'refresh' parameter options or 'upsert' behavior in detail.

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 the verb '更新' (update) and resource '文档' (document), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'doc_update_by_query' or 'doc_index', which perform similar document operations but with different approaches.

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 two concrete examples showing when to use partial updates vs. script updates, which gives implied guidance on usage scenarios. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'doc_update_by_query' for bulk updates or 'doc_index' for full document replacement, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints.

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