update_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the partial update behavior (only provided fields updated) and describes the return structure including success flag, updated fields, and document info. This is sufficient for a simple update operation.

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 concise yet thorough, with a clear structure: main action sentence, behavioral note, bulleted Args, and bulleted Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 the presence of an output schema (context indicates 'Has output schema: true'), the description already covers return values. It fully addresses the update behavior and parameter meanings, making it complete for a tool of this complexity.

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% (no parameter descriptions in schema). The description compensates by providing an Args section that explains each parameter, including that doc_id is a SHA256 hash and the meaning of other fields like authors, venue, etc. This adds significant value 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 tool's purpose: '更新指定文档的元数据' (update metadata of specified document), with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_document' and 'get_document' by focusing on metadata updates.

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 explains that only provided fields are updated while others remain unchanged, providing clear usage context. Although it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it vs alternatives, the sibling tools are distinct enough to avoid confusion.

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