document_series_update

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

Annotations cover safety hints (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds what annotations cannot say: which fields are immutable after creation, what deactivation actually means operationally, and that changing currentNumber shifts the next issued document number with a duplicate risk. That is meaningful consequence-level context beyond the structured metadata.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then allowed mutations, then the operational warning. No filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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 4-param mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope, mutable vs immutable fields, and the main failure mode. It does not say what the call returns or whether any permission/role is required, which is a minor gap given annotations already signal it is a non-destructive, idempotent write.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: prefix and type are immutable (a constraint statement, not a field doc), and it frames currentNumber as affecting the *next* document number rather than just the stored counter. uuid and companyId are left to the schema, which is fine at full coverage.

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 an existing document series') and immediately bounds the mutable surface, which distinguishes it from document_series_create, document_series_delete and document_series_set_default without opening any schema.

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?

Gives a concrete usage scenario ('Use active=false to deactivate a series, e.g., at end of fiscal year') and a caution condition for currentNumber. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., create/delete for other lifecycle operations), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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