update_document

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and excels: discloses failure condition (approval flow complete), non-idempotency, timeout behavior, and a safe retry strategy. This goes beyond typical mutation descriptions.

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?

Four sentences, all dense with relevant information. Front-loaded with purpose, followed by critical caveats. No wasted words.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers failure modes, idempotency, scope, and references a sibling for complex parameter shape. It does not mention return value, but this is a minor gap given the strong behavioral coverage.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by noting that 'serialized has the same object shape as create_document', giving cross-tool semantic context not present in the schema itself, which justifies one point above baseline.

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 opens with 'Update a document's content' – a specific verb and resource with clear scope. It distinguishes from siblings like create_document by stating 'Metadata is NOT updated here' and referencing the serialized shape relative to create_document, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context: for content updates only, not metadata. Warns about non-idempotency and advises listing documents before retrying. Does not explicitly name alternative tools for metadata updates, but the exclusion is clear enough given sibling names like transition_document_state.

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