Update document

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

Annotations mark this as a write operation (readOnlyHint false) but carry little behavioral detail; the description supplies the important nuances: non-destructive partial update, full replacement of the tag list, and the need for pre-resolved numeric IDs. It also clarifies that omitted fields are left untouched, which goes beyond what annotations provide and prevents an agent from assuming a full overwrite.

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 with zero waste; every sentence carries instructionally useful information. The core action is front-loaded in the first clause, and the description does not repeat schema field descriptions or annotation flags.

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 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope, partial-update behavior, the tag replacement trap, and the alternative for multi-document tag edits. It does not describe return values or permission requirements, but those are less critical given the annotations and the resource-focused wording.

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 70% with descriptions for most fields, and the description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics: the partial-update rule applies to every parameter, and the tag replacement contract is explicitly stated. It also explains the ID-resolution requirement for correspondent, document_type, and storage_path, which the schema does not convey. Owner and archive_serial_number remain implicit, but the description compensates well for the schema gaps.

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 opens with 'Change metadata on a single document', giving a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling bulk_edit_documents by contrasting single-document scope with cross-document operations. The title alone would be ambiguous, but the description resolves that completely.

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 states the partial-update rule ('Only the fields you pass are modified'), so the agent knows when this tool is appropriate for surgical changes. It explicitly routes tag add/remove to bulk_edit_documents, providing a when-not-to-use instruction with the exact alternative. It also gives the prerequisite to resolve names via get_metadata_overview before passing numeric IDs.

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