write_document

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the risk profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful behavior context — that updates use $set and that update/delete need a filter — but says nothing about irreversibility of delete_one or what happens to unmatched filters, so it only partially exceeds the annotation baseline.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each sentence adds a distinct constraint. Nothing is wasted or repeated from the schema.

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 need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a destructive multi-operation tool with zero schema description coverage, the omission of per-operation parameter requirements (document for insert, filter for update/delete beyond a passing mention) leaves meaningful 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only touches two of five parameters: the filter requirement for update/delete and $set syntax for updates. database, collection, and document semantics (e.g., that document is required for insert and ignored for delete) are left entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Write one MongoDB document") that clearly separates it from the read-only sibling find_documents. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the write/read distinction is unambiguous from the verb.

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 gives operational prerequisites ("update/delete require a filter") which tell the agent how to call the tool, but never states when to prefer it over siblings like execute_sql or execute_transaction. Usage is implied by the operation enum rather than guided.

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