update_document

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the refusal for encrypted documents and the ability to optionally update the title. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects on other fields, or the exact nature of the replacement (e.g., whether it's a full overwrite).

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and adds a key constraint. Every word is earned, and it is efficiently structured.

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 no output schema and 3 parameters, the description covers the essential purpose and a behavioral constraint. However, it lacks details on return value, error handling beyond encryption, and does not elaborate on the 'id' parameter. It is somewhat complete but could be more helpful.

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 explains 'content' and 'title' (noting title is optional), but does not explain 'id' or provide constraints like format or length. The description adds some meaning but leaves gaps for two out of three parameters.

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 'Replace' and resource 'existing plaintext document', with a specific constraint 'Refuses if encrypted'. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_document or 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 implies usage for updating existing documents but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives like create_document or delete_document. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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