Update Document

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

Annotations indicate this is a non-readonly, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: content changes automatically save a previous version to history and old versions can be restored via vault_doc_restore. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second adds key behavioral detail about version history. Every word earns its place, and it is perfectly sized for its content.

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 tool has 7 parameters with 0% schema coverage, but the description covers the core update behavior and the important versioning nuance. It lacks explicit guidance on parameter semantics and when to use specialized sibling tools, but the output schema and annotations cover some gaps. Overall, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 only mentions 'content or metadata' without specifying which metadata fields (name, tags, notes, category, priority) are available or that doc_id is required. This provides minimal help for parameter selection.

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 tool updates a document's content or metadata, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like vault_doc_restore (restoring) and vault_copy_doc (copying).

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 clear context for when to use this tool (updating content or metadata) but does not explicitly mention alternatives for metadata-only updates (e.g., vault_tag_doc, vault_set_priority). It does point to vault_doc_restore for restoring versions, though not as a direct alternative for updating.

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