docs_update

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the operation re-scrapes remote content, detects changes, and returns a diff summary, which implies a mutating, network-dependent write. It does not say whether existing docs are overwritten or preserved, whether the change is reversible, or what auth/permission is required.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the core action and scope are front-loaded before the diff-summary note. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does provide the one important return signal (diff summary) and the scoping behavior. It still omits the safety/permission and overwrite semantics an agent should know before triggering a re-scrape of an entire source.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the pagePath-omitted behavior. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Update/refresh existing documentation by re-scraping') plus the two supported scopes (whole source vs single page). It is distinguishable from docs_add_url/add_sitemap by the re-scrape framing, but it never names a sibling tool, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

'Can update an entire source or a single page' implies when each mode applies via pagePath, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., that sourceId must come from docs_list), and no mention of when to prefer re-adding via docs_add_url instead.

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