doc_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses a key behavior: conditional compare-and-swap and a conflict error code. It does not cover lock semantics, permissions, or effects on content/metadata, leaving significant mutation behavior undocumented.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and failure mode; no filler or redundancy. It earns a high conciseness score despite being minimal.

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?

Output schema covers return values, but the tool has 11 parameters, no annotations, and a CAS concurrency model. Missing context about how content is supplied, whether locks/share tokens are required, and what happens to unspecified fields makes invocation ambiguous beyond the one explained failure case.

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% across 11 parameters, and the description only adds semantics for expected_hash, which must match the current hash. Parameters like content vs content_base64, lock_token, share_token, keep_lock, and agent_id receive no behavioral explanation, so parameter semantics are insufficient.

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 states a clear action ('Atualiza' = updates) on a document resource and adds a distinguishing mechanism, compare-and-swap. This separates it from doc_create and doc_put, though it does not explicitly say 'existing document' or define the update 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?

CAS semantics imply this tool is for optimistic concurrent updates: the caller supplies expected_hash and failure means another write happened. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance against doc_put, doc_checkout/doc_commit, or other siblings, so the agent must infer the routing.

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