Docflow Amend Category

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It clearly reveals that calling this tool triggers re-extraction and reprocessing with the correct category's field configuration, which is a meaningful side effect beyond the simple action of updating a category.

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 compact and well-structured: the main action and side effect are front-loaded, followed by a clear usage condition. Every sentence provides useful information with no filler.

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?

The core purpose and side effect are covered, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, the 0% parameter schema coverage and lack of annotations leave gaps around required parameter semantics and preconditions, making the description only minimally complete.

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 for explaining the parameters. It only implies the meaning of 'category' via the phrase 'correct category's field configuration,' but does not explain workspace_id or task_id, leaving the agent to guess their roles.

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 states a specific action—correcting a misclassified file's category—and names the key side effect of triggering re-extraction. It also includes the exact endpoint, making the tool's intent unambiguous and distinguishing it from generic file update or retry 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use when a file was classified into the wrong category.' It does not name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the stated use case is clear and actionable.

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