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 does disclose the two most non-obvious behaviors: `text` REPLACES the body by default, and only passed fields are changed (partial update). It is silent on side effects like the notification trigger for `done` or draft-publishing via `publish`, which the schema mentions only in passing.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the append nuance and the partial-update guarantee. No filler, though the final sentence slightly overlaps the second in intent.

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 six-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the tricky semantics (replace vs append, partial update) that an agent most needs. The remaining gaps (done/publish side effects) are documented in the schema, so the definition is close to sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters (including id, done, publish). The description reinforces the text/append interaction and partial-update semantics but adds no new parameter detail beyond that 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?

States a specific verb (update) and resource (existing document) plus the editable fields (title, markdown body). It is clearly distinct from the create/move/archive/get siblings by name and scope, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer 'use this to modify an existing doc' versus create_document. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to any sibling, so it stops at the minimum viable level.

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