quire.updateDocument

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, which covers behavioral trait. Description adds no further disclosure (e.g., patch vs. full overwrite, error behavior, permissions). With annotations handling idempotency, a neutral score is appropriate, but more detail would improve agent understanding.

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?

Single 13-word sentence, front-loaded with action and target. No redundancy. Every word earns its place. Excellent for quick parsing.

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?

Despite rich schema, the description omits critical contextual guidance: no mention that identification is required (either oid or the three-field combo), no hint that updates are partial (patch behavior), and no description of return values (no output schema). For a tool with 12 optional parameters, this leaves the agent underinformed.

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?

Input schema covers all 12 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). Description restates the identification duality already in schema, adding no new semantic value. Baseline score of 3 applies as schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Description clearly states 'Update a document's properties' with two identification methods (by OID or by owner type/ID and document ID). Distinguishes from sibling tools like getDocument or createDocument. Could be more explicit about the scope of updatable properties, but the verb+resource pairing is clear.

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?

Sentence implies when to use (to update a document) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use. No mention of prerequisites or conditions like requiring write permissions. Acceptable but lacks proactive direction.

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