document_series_update

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses immutability of prefix/type, semantics of active=false, and the risk of currentNumber changes causing duplicates. Slightly short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly state a read-only/reversible nature for active changes beyond implication.

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, all information-dense with no filler. Front-loaded with the primary purpose and immutability constraint first. Slight deduction: could tighten the duplicate warning, but content earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers mutation scope, immutability, deactivation use case, and duplicate risk. It doesn't explain return value or required permissions, but for an update tool with well-covered schema, it's reasonably complete. Minor gap: what happens to the series' associated documents when deactivated.

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 parameters are already well documented. However, the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it clarifies that currentNumber affects the NEXT document number and that prefix/type are immutable even though they exist in sibling create tool. The description doesn't repeat schema info, adding contextual value.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Update an existing document series') with explicit scoping of what can and cannot change (only currentNumber and active; prefix and type immutable). Distinct from siblings like document_series_create, document_series_set_default, document_series_delete.

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?

Explicitly states what fields are mutable vs immutable, gives concrete use case (active=false to deactivate at end of fiscal year), and warns against changing currentNumber to avoid duplicates. This is strong when-to/why-to guidance absent from schema alone.

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