postmd_update_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key write behaviors: markdown replaces stored content, metadata fields replace only that field, and clear flags remove the password/end date. It also states the required write permission. It falls short of 5 because it does not describe return values or conflict behavior such as password plus clearPassword together.

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 two carefully written sentences with no filler. The first sentence covers purpose and auth, and the second covers all important update/removal semantics, front-loading the most critical information.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must cover more ground. It handles auth, ownership, replacement, and removal semantics well, but it omits return-value information, the file-upload alternative, and conflict handling between password and clearPassword. These are gaps an agent would need to resolve from sibling tools or runtime behavior.

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 schema already documents 7 of 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful cross-field semantics: 'any metadata field replaces that field' and clear flags remove values rather than set them, which is not captured by the property descriptions alone.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Update a document you own,' with an ownership constraint that helps scope the tool. It also explains that markdown replaces stored content and metadata fields replace individual fields. It does not explicitly contrast itself with postmd_update_document_from_file, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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 a clear precondition: 'Requires an API key with documents:write.' It also explains when to use markdown, metadata fields, and the clear flags, which gives an agent solid context for calling the tool. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so exclusions are missing.

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