dossier_update

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a mutation operation (update) with a prerequisite chain and a status constraint. Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden. It does not detail side effects, authorization needs, or rollback behavior, but the status constraint is a clear behavioral boundary.

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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with critical constraints. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient.

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?

Despite providing prerequisites and status conditions, the description omits essential information: return value (no output schema defined), error scenarios, parameter specifics, and optionality. For a tool with 11 parameters, this leaves significant gaps in the agent's understanding of how to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 11 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain any parameter's meaning or role. It uses the generic term 'metadata' without mapping to specific fields (name, modelId, purpose, etc.). This forces the agent to infer parameter semantics from names alone, which is inadequate for such a complex input 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 the verb 'updates' and the resource 'metadata of an existing dossier', distinguishing it from sibling tools like dossier_create, dossier_certify, and dossier_delete. It also specifies prerequisites (dossier_create → dossierId, caseFileId) and a status condition (DRAFT status), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly states when the tool can be used ('only while dossier is in DRAFT status') and lists required prerequisites. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide direct alternatives, though the context of prerequisites and status guide usage sufficiently.

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