Core Content Services MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates this is a mutation operation ('Updates'), describes success/failure outcomes, and mentions the prerequisite call requirement. However, it doesn't address permissions, side effects, or rate limits that would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured with clear sections (prerequisites, purpose, limitations, parameters, returns). Every sentence earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the most critical prerequisite first. No wasted words.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations but with an output schema, the description provides excellent context. It covers prerequisites, purpose, limitations, parameter guidance, and return behavior. The output schema will handle return value details, so the description focuses on what's needed for correct usage.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides meaningful context for both parameters: identifier can be 'ID (GUID) or its path' and document_properties includes 'name, mimeType, etc.' While not exhaustive, this adds substantial value beyond the bare 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 specific action ('Updates an existing document's properties') and resource ('in the content repository'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_document_class. It explicitly states what it does NOT do ('does NOT change the document's class'), which provides excellent differentiation.

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 provides explicit prerequisites ('MUST call get_class_property_descriptions first') and clear alternatives ('To change a document's class, use the update_document_class tool instead'). It gives specific guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, including what it doesn't do.

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