update_document

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Update an existing document' without disclosing whether it performs a partial or full update, what happens if the document doesn't exist, or any mutation side effects. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with 11 parameters.

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 single-sentence description is extremely brief but under-specified for a tool with 11 parameters. It lacks structure (e.g., behavioral notes, examples) and does not earn its place. True conciseness would convey more information efficiently.

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 complexity of 11 parameters, the absence of an output schema, and no behavioral details in the description, the tool is incomplete. The agent lacks information about update semantics, error cases, or document type constraints beyond the 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or guidance on parameter interactions (e.g., required vs optional, relationships like tax vs taxes array). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'update' and resource 'existing document', which is accurate. However, it lacks specificity to distinguish from sibling tools like update_document_pipeline or update_document_tracking, which also update documents but with different scopes. The schema provides additional context via docType enum, but the description itself is generic.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus create_document, delete_document, or other update tools. There are no hints about prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternatives. The agent must infer from the tool name alone.

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