dossier_update

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds that it updates specific metadata and is only available in DRAFT status. However, it doesn't disclose what happens to omitted fields (patch vs. replace), required permissions, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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: first states the action, second gives prerequisites and constraints. Every word is necessary; no fluff. Perfectly concise.

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?

Given 11 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It doesn't explain return values, partial update behavior, or error conditions (e.g., if dossier is not in DRAFT). The tool is relatively complex, but the description provides minimal context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only names 'name, template fields, expiry' which map to a few of the 11 parameters (e.g., name, filledFields, validityTo). Many parameters like modelId, purpose, language, accessToken, dossierTemplateId are not mentioned, leaving the agent without guidance on their meaning.

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?

Description clearly states 'Updates the metadata of an existing dossier' and lists specific fields (name, template fields, expiry). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like dossier_create (creates new) and dossier_delete (removes).

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?

Prerequisites are given: 'Requires: dossier_create → dossierId, caseFileId' and a status constraint: 'Only available while dossier is in DRAFT status.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like dossier_certify.

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