boond_documents_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does clarify that only metadata is updated (not the document content), which is useful. However, it does not describe side effects, permission requirements, partial-update semantics, or what happens when folderId changes.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making the primary purpose immediately visible. It could be improved by mentioning the required id, but it is not verbose or poorly 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not mention that only metadata is affected, how folderId behaves, or that id is required and identifies the target document. An agent would need additional inference or external knowledge to call this correctly.

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 glosses over 'id' entirely and only loosely maps 'folder' to folderId. The phrase 'name, folder' adds minimal meaning beyond the property names already present in the schema, and no format or behavioral semantics for the parameters are provided.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Update document metadata'. It also enumerates the targeted fields ('name, folder'), which signals what the tool operates on. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like boond_documents_download or other update tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. The description only conveys the basic action, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage without support.

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