legal_put_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and "Replace" does signal an overwrite of the whole document. It adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact - the plugin ships no legal prose and only stores/renders supplied content - but omits what happens to existing sections, permission requirements, or reversibility.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the key structural rules. Nothing is padded, though the closing note about the plugin not shipping prose is slightly peripheral and could be folded into the first sentence.

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 destructive, no-annotation, no-output-schema write tool, the definition covers structure semantics and the lack of default content, but does not clarify whether the replacement is total (wiping omitted sections) or whether the target document must already exist - important for a PUT-style operation.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters, including the slug derivation rule and ordered sections. The description restates the ordering and slug-derivation semantics rather than adding new syntax or constraint detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Replace a legal document" gives a specific verb and resource, and the concept of whole-document replacement is distinguishable from the sibling section-level tools (legal_add_section, legal_update_section). However, it never names those siblings or explicitly contrasts the full-document write against partial edits, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer from the verb "Replace" that this overwrites an entire document and that section-level siblings exist for partial edits; no prerequisites, no conditions, and no alternatives are named.

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