update_document_type

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds PATCH semantics ('only fields you supply are changed'), which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. It doesn't mention permissions or side effects, but the idempotentHint and non-destructive annotation cover the main safety profile. The PATCH disclosure is a meaningful addition.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core PATCH semantics and editable fields, then the alternative routing. Every sentence earns its place; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 single-resource PATCH tool with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description covers the essential behavior and routes to alternatives. The main gap is that 3 of 5 parameters lack schema descriptions and the description doesn't add detail for them, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can infer the semantics from the field names. No output schema exists, but for a PATCH update the response format is typically the updated object, which is a minor gap.

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 40% (2 of 5 params have descriptions: is_insensitive and matching_algorithm). The description lists the editable fields (name, match, matching_algorithm, is_insensitive) but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides for the undocumented ones (id, name, match). The description does clarify that only supplied fields are changed, which is useful for understanding how parameters behave, but it doesn't compensate for the 3 undocumented parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Update'), a specific resource ('ONE document type'), and the PATCH semantics ('only fields you supply are changed'). It also lists the editable fields, which distinguishes it from create/delete/bulk document type tools. This is a clear, specific purpose statement.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool (updating fields on one document type) and when not to: 'To assign this document type to documents, use edit_documents_bulk with method 'set_document_type' or update_document instead.' This is explicit routing to alternatives, which is exactly what the dimension asks for.

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