Update text of Docling document item at anchor

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

Annotations already declare this as mutating and destructive, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful behavioral context by explaining the target must be an existing document item and that the document must already be cached, which goes beyond the raw 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?

The description is concise, consisting of two short sentences that convey the primary action and the key prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or redundant information.

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?

With full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations indicating destructive behavior, the description covers the essential operational context: the update targets an existing cached item by anchor. It could add a note about how to obtain valid anchors or the need to save after updating, but these are not critical gaps given the sibling tools and existing 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters: document_key, updated_text, and document_anchor. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('text content of a specific document item identified by its anchor'), making the tool's function immediately clear. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_text_of_document_item_at_anchor and delete_document_items_at_anchors by focusing on modifying existing text.

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 clearly states that the tool requires the document to already exist in the local cache before modification, providing meaningful context for when it can be used. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the prerequisite is clear enough to guide the agent.

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