modify_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that properties are modified (name, is_pinned) and returns a status/message, but it does not detail potential side effects, permissions, or reversibility. With missing annotations, the description is adequate but not highly transparent.

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 well-structured: a one-line main purpose, a prerequisite section, an args list, and returns. It is concise with no wasted words, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 has three parameters, one required, and an output schema, the description covers the prerequisite, parameters, and return value. It is largely complete, though it lacks details on error handling or specific constraints, which could be inferred from the output schema.

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%, but the description compensates by listing each parameter (doc_id, name, is_pinned) with clear explanations. This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, which only provides types and defaults.

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 'Modifies the properties of a document,' which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_document, create_document, and move_document by focusing on property modification.

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 a prerequisite: use list_documents to obtain a valid doc_id. This guides the agent on when to use this tool (after listing documents). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, leaving room for improvement.

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