update_document

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: the response strips OCR content by default and provides a flag to override. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and add a critical behavioral note. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered externally. The description explains the `include_content` behavior and implies patch semantics. However, it omits that `patch` performs a partial update and does not describe the potential for error or required permissions, leaving some gaps.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only mentions the `include_content` parameter. The complex `patch` object with many fields (tags, title, content, custom_fields, etc.) remains unexplained, leaving the agent to guess field semantics and valid values.

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 action ('Patch selected fields') and the resource ('a document'), using a specific verb that distinguishes it from siblings like delete_document or get_document. The additional detail about content stripping further clarifies behavior.

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 such as bulk_edit_documents or upload_document. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or conflicting tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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