Update document text fields

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

The description confirms mutation (consistent with annotations) and adds a specific constraint not covered by annotations. Annotations already provide safety profile, so the description adds value without contradiction.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and constraints. 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?

Given the presence of an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and constraints. It is complete for the complexity level.

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 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains the update_requests structure in detail. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond stating the action and scope, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'update', the resource 'text fields', and the scope 'multiple documents' with explicit exclusion of 'document groups', fully distinguishing from sibling tools.

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?

It provides clear direction by stating that only individual documents are supported, not groups, guiding the agent on when to use this tool. No explicit alternatives are named, but the exclusion is helpful.

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