update_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: 'Removes old chunks and re-indexes with new content' explains the mutation process and side effects. It also mentions the return format ('JSON string with update results'). However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or performance implications.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by behavioral details and parameter/return explanations. Each sentence adds value, with no redundant information. Minor improvement could be made by integrating parameter details more seamlessly.

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 moderate complexity (mutation with 2 params), no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, behavior, parameters, and returns, though it omits error cases and sibling differentiation. The output schema reduces the need to detail return values, so gaps are acceptable.

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 adds meaning for both parameters: 'filepath: Full path to the document file' and 'content: New content for the document', clarifying their roles beyond the schema's basic titles. This adequately covers the two required parameters, though it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., filepath syntax).

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's purpose: 'Update an existing document in the knowledge base.' It specifies the verb ('update') and resource ('document in the knowledge base'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_document' or 'remove_document'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'reindex_documents' which might have overlapping functionality.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., document must exist), exclusions, or comparisons with siblings like 'reindex_documents' or 'add_document'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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