update_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation (implying mutation) and mentions the return format, but lacks critical details like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. The 'Returns:' statement is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 efficiently structured with clear sections: purpose statement, usage bullet, parameter format example, and return information. Each sentence adds value, though the 'Usage:' line could be more integrated. It's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool.

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?

Given a mutation tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description does moderately well. It covers core functionality and parameter semantics but lacks behavioral context (permissions, side effects) and doesn't fully address all parameters. The output schema reduces the need to explain returns, but more guidance is needed for safe usage.

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. It explains that 'document_id' is required (implied by 'Updates existing'), clarifies that 'name', 'tags', and 'fields' can be modified, and provides the exact JSON structure for 'fields' parameter. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover all 5 parameters (e.g., 'form_id' is unexplained).

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 ('Updates') and resource ('existing RSpace document content and metadata'), providing specific scope. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'renameDocumentOrNotebookEntry' or 'tagDocumentOrNotebookEntry', which might handle similar partial updates.

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 includes a 'Usage:' section that lists what can be modified (name, tags, field content), but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'renameDocumentOrNotebookEntry' for name changes or 'tagDocumentOrNotebookEntry' for tag updates. No prerequisites, exclusions, or sibling comparisons are mentioned.

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