update_doc

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the auth requirement (docs.update) and scopes the update to title and/or text, which is useful. It does not mention return values, error behavior, or reversibility, but given the simple nature of the update, this is somewhat acceptable. It is more transparent than a bare 'Update document' but still leaves gaps.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the permission requirement, and every word adds value. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 is simple with only three parameters, and the description covers the core purpose and auth. There is no output schema, but for an update tool, the return format is not critical. The main gap is the ambiguity around whether both title and text are optional; the description's 'and/or' partially addresses this. Overall, it is reasonably complete for the tool's 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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that title and/or text can be updated, suggesting that at least one should be provided. However, it does not explain the 'id' parameter, and the schema itself requires only id, which could lead to confusion about whether a no-op update is allowed. The description adds some semantic value but not fully.

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 tool updates a document's title and/or text, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_doc, delete_doc, read_doc, and search_docs by specifying exactly what is modified.

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 implies when to use this tool (when needing to update an existing document's title or text) and includes a permission requirement, which is helpful context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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