Update Document Metadata

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

Annotations already indicate that the tool is idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as whether only provided fields are updated (patch behavior) or other side effects. With rich annotations, additional transparency is expected.

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 extremely short (one sentence) but lacks important details for a 5-parameter tool. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, missing opportunities to summarize behavior.

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's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, but annotations present), the description fails to explain partial update behavior, return values, or the scope of metadata changes. It is incomplete for effective use.

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 coverage is 100% with individual parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is adequate but not enhanced.

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 states 'Update metadata for a document,' which clearly indicates the action and resource. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'transkribus_doc_update_metadata_v2,' nor does it specify which metadata fields are affected, leaving some ambiguity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'transkribus_doc_update_metadata_v2' or 'transkribus_coll_update_metadata.' There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusion criteria.

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