document_put

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, idempotency, authentication, error behavior, or what happens on success/failure. The only 'behavior' is a capability prerequisite, which is not informative about the operation itself.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse, though its brevity comes at the cost of necessary details.

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 moderate complexity (2 required params), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It lacks behavioral context, parameter guidance, and any mention of return values or side effects, leaving the agent to make many assumptions.

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%, and the description fails to mention 'slug' or 'content'. There is no explanation of what each parameter represents, whether slug is a key for lookup, or what format content should take. The description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 names a specific verb ('Put') and resource ('document'), indicating a write operation. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling read/search tools, but the verb 'put' is vague about whether it creates, replaces, or updates a document.

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. The phrase 'when the optional document capability is installed' is a prerequisite condition, not usage guidance, and no exclusions or alternative tool references are mentioned.

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