update_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states 'Update an existing document' and lists parameters, but does not explain critical traits: whether it performs a partial update (only fields provided are changed) or overwrites the entire document, what happens if document_id does not exist, whether special permissions are required, or if changes are reversible. This is a significant gap 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 concise and well-structured: a clear one-line purpose, followed by a formatted argument list, and a return statement. It avoids unnecessary filler. However, it could include more behavioral context without becoming verbose, so it is not maximally efficient.

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 tool has 5 parameters, only one required, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain partial update behavior, error handling, or the meaning of null parameters. The output schema exists but is not shown here; the description does mention the return format, but that is insufficient for a mutation tool. An agent would lack essential information to use it 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It lists each parameter with a brief label ('New document name', 'New folder ID'), which adds minimal value beyond the schema titles. It does not clarify that all parameters except document_id are optional and default to null, nor does it explain how null values are treated (ignored vs. clearing fields). This leaves ambiguity about the update semantics.

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 action: 'Update an existing document.' It lists the specific fields to update (name, content, folder, visibility), which distinguishes it from create and delete operations. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_document_jwt or other update tools, so it doesn't fully distinguish within the tool family.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_document, delete_document, or update_document_jwt. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing an existing document_id, or when a partial update is appropriate. The description simply states the action without context for selection.

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