Update Document Metadata v2

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, open-world update. The description merely repeats the verb 'Update', adding no additional behavioral context such as side effects, permissions, or limits. It does not contradict annotations.

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 concise, consisting of a single sentence. Although it avoids verbosity, it is too brief and lacks essential information such as parameter details or usage examples. It could be more informative without significant bloat.

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 a complex nested parameter ('body') with no output schema, yet the description provides no explanation of the expected structure or return values. Given the tool's complexity and the lack of output schema, the description is incomplete and leaves the agent guessing about how to construct the 'body' and what to expect.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (collId, id, body). However, the description does not explain the 'body' parameter's structure or valid fields, relying entirely on the schema. With high schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description adds no extra value.

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 verb 'Update' and the resource 'document metadata', and mentions the 'v2 endpoint' to distinguish from a possible older version. However, it does not elaborate on what specific metadata fields can be updated, leaving some ambiguity about the tool's scope.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as 'transkribus_coll_update_metadata' or 'transkribus_doc_update_metadata' (v1). No context about prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it is given.

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