Update public settings of a Rootr document

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about authentication tokens but does not detail side effects or behavior when the document is not published.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The essential information is front-loaded: action, resource, example, and authorization constraint.

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?

For a simple mutation with two parameters, the description covers purpose, usage, and authorization. However, absence of output schema means no return value description, but this is acceptable for a tool that likely returns a confirmation.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by providing an example usage ('{"isPublic": false} to unpublish'), but this only slightly enhances understanding beyond the 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 'update' and the resource 'public settings of a Rootr (루터) document', with an example. It distinguishes from siblings like 'rootr_publish_document' and 'rootr_document_public_status' by focusing on modifying existing settings.

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 specifies authorization requirements (owner-level, account key) and mentions token restrictions. It implicitly guides use when having proper credentials but does not explicitly list when to use alternatives.

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