Update a document

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that text replaces the body (a behavioral detail about mutation), which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or how existing title/body values are handled when only one field is supplied.

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 plus a brief Args listing and a Return statement. It is front-loaded with the main action and contains no unnecessary filler. However, the Args section largely repeats the schema and could be omitted in favor of richer behavioral detail.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states that it returns the updated document. But for a mutation tool with openWorldHint and no idempotency guarantee, the description omits important context such as whether partial updates are allowed (i.e., what happens if only title or only text is provided), whether updates are reversible, and any side effects. These gaps reduce completeness.

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 67%, so some parameters are already documented in the schema (id and text). The description adds the note that text replaces the body, which matches the schema but does not add new syntax or format information. The title parameter lacks a schema description, yet the description only names it without clarifying constraints or format.

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 (Update) and resource (document), and enumerates the mutable fields (title and/or body). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like create_document or delete_document. However, it does not differentiate from move_document, which also updates a document, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as outline_move_document or outline_get_document. The only implicit guidance is that it can update title or body, but no context, exclusions, or prerequisites are provided.

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