update_document

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, and is idempotent. The description adds that only provided fields are modified and content supports markdown, which provides some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose authorization needs, rate limits, or other side effects.

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, both front-loaded with the purpose. No redundant or extra words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description is fairly complete for a simple update tool with 4 parameters. It covers behavior (partial update, markdown support) but lacks mention of return value or error scenarios. No output schema exists, so description could have addressed what the response looks like.

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?

Input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by stating 'Only provided fields are modified,' clarifying the optional nature of non-required parameters. It also reiterates markdown support for content, which is already in schema. This adds moderate value beyond schema.

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 fields on an existing Huly document, specifies partial update behavior, and notes markdown support for content. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_document and delete_document.

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 implicitly indicates use when you need to modify an existing document, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_issue or update_teamspace. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is given.

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