update_document

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

With no annotations, description fully discloses behavior: 'Mutating — overwrites the file on disk and re-indexes immediately. Old chunks are removed and replaced with new ones. Full content replacement, not a patch.' Also states changes are immediately searchable.

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?

Well-structured with separate sections for behavior, args, returns, and usage. Every sentence is informative, though slightly verbose. Front-loaded with purpose and 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?

For a mutation tool with reindexing and full replacement, description covers prerequisites, effects, and output. References sibling tools for alternative actions. No gaps given the complexity.

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 0%, but description explains both parameters: filepath must be an already-indexed file and reference to list_documents(), content is full-text replacement. Also describes return value format.

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?

Clearly states 'Update the content of an existing document' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from siblings add_document and remove_document directly in the usage section.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use (replace content completely), when not (use add_document for new files, remove_document for deletion), and prerequisite (file must already be indexed, use list_documents to find paths).

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