patchDocument

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Updates.' It does not clarify whether the update is partial (PATCH) or full, what side effects occur (e.g., overwriting fields), authorization requirements, or idempotency. This is insufficient for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core function. However, given the complexity of the nested requestBody schema and the lack of other context, it may be too brief to fully inform the agent. It earns marks for brevity but loses one point for being slightly underspecified.

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?

The tool has a complex input schema, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to mention return values, expected behavior (e.g., returns updated document), or how to construct the requestBody. It leaves the agent without enough context to use the tool effectively, especially compared to a mutation tool of this 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the schema itself provides adequate meaning. The description adds no extra parameter information beyond 'Updates the specified Document,' so it meets the baseline expectation but does not enrich the schema's explanations.

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 'Updates the specified Document,' which clearly identifies the action (update) and resource (Document). It is specific enough to understand the tool's basic function, though it could be more precise by indicating it's a partial update (PATCH) rather than a full replacement. The name 'patchDocument' already distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'patchWorkItem' or 'postDocuments', so no further differentiation is needed.

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. For example, it does not mention that this tool updates existing documents, while 'postDocuments' creates new ones, nor does it explain prerequisites such as the document already existing. Given the large number of sibling tools, explicit usage context is missing.

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