app_encryption_declaration_documents__update

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, which already convey that this is a write operation that is safe to retry. The description adds the API endpoint and that it updates the document but provides no additional behavioral context (e.g., that uploaded=true triggers server-side processing, or that checksum is used for verification). 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?

The description is one sentence plus an endpoint reference, which is efficient and front-loaded. It earns its place by clearly stating the action and the exact REST operation. No wasted words.

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 minimal for a nested JSON:API body mutation tool. It does not explain the purpose of 'uploaded' or 'sourceFileChecksum', nor the implications of updating these fields (e.g., marking a document as uploaded). It relies heavily on the schema and annotations, which only partially compensate.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter names and types. The description adds little beyond the schema, except that the id comes from 'the matching list call', which is useful. However, the meaning of attributes (uploaded, sourceFileChecksum) is not expanded beyond their names and types.

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') and resource ('app encryption declaration document'), and includes the API endpoint. It clearly distinguishes this from other app_encryption_declaration_documents__* tools (create, get) and related sibling tools.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, related documents, or contrast with create/get/delete operations. There is no mention of required relationships between this document and an encryption declaration.

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