vtex_update_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Update' implies mutation, but the description doesn't address permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to fields not included in the update. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a mutation operation.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description and front-loads the essential information.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or error handling. While concise, it fails to provide the contextual completeness needed for an agent to understand how to properly invoke this update operation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any meaningful context beyond what the schema provides - it doesn't explain what 'entity acronym' means, how to obtain document IDs, or the structure of the 'document' object. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and resource ('a Master Data document'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'vtex_update_brand' or 'vtex_update_category' beyond specifying 'Master Data document' as the target resource type.

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 alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (like needing an existing document ID), when not to use it, or how it differs from other update tools in the sibling list.

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