update_document_version

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

Annotations already signal mutation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotence (idempotentHint=true), and non-destruction (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that the change is limited to the version_label and that version IDs come from get_document, which is useful procedural context. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 compact sentences with the main action front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence contributes either the operation or the dependency on get_document for version IDs.

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 simple 3-parameter rename with no output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the operation, the affected field, and how to find the required version_id. Return-value details are not specified, but they are not essential given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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?

The schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description essentially restates the version_id provenance already present in the schema and names version_label, adding no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the structured definitions.

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 action ('Rename a version of a document') and the exact field affected ('change its version_label'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes this from sibling operations like upload_document_version and delete_document_version by focusing on the rename/label-only scope.

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 gives clear prerequisite context: version IDs are obtained from get_document's `versions`, which tells the agent where to get the required version_id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the rename scope is clear enough for correct selection.

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