update_document

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral expectations. It mentions updating fields, hinting at partial modification, but fails to explain what happens if the document does not exist, whether permissions are required, or how unspecified fields are treated. This leaves significant uncertainty 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 concise at two sentences, with the first stating the core function and the second providing a concrete example for the data parameter. Every word serves a purpose, and it is front-loaded for quick understanding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description. However, the tool has three required parameters, and the description explains only one. It also lacks usage guidance and behavioral notes, making it incomplete for an agent trying to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining all parameters. It only describes the 'data' parameter with an example, leaving 'doctype' and 'name' without any explanation. Although these names are somewhat intuitive, the description does not alleviate the lack of schema detail.

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 identifies the tool's action: updating fields on an existing document. The verb 'update' combined with 'existing document' distinguishes it from create, delete, and get operations, making the 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?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state that it should be used only for existing documents, nor does it reference create_document for new records. The description implies usage but offers no decision framework.

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