Update document type

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

The annotations already establish that this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description does not need to restate that. It does add the important behavioral detail that omitted fields keep their current values, which prevents destructive misunderstandings. It does not address authorization, response contents, or the open-world side effects hinted by openWorldHint=true.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the clarifying partial-update behavior immediately follows.

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?

The schema carries substantial detail for the nested set_permissions object and matching_algorithm. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not mention what the endpoint returns, whether side effects exist beyond the document type object, or how openWorldHint=true should be interpreted. Adequate for a basic call, but not fully complete for an agent deciding whether this tool has broader consequences.

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?

The schema already documents most parameters well (71% coverage), including match, owner, is_insensitive, set_permissions, and matching_algorithm. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining partial-update semantics: fields not passed are preserved, which is crucial for callers deciding which parameters to include. It does not compensate for the undocumented id and name properties, but the partial-update framing reduces the risk.

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 'Partially update a document type', which names a specific action and resource, and clarifies the partial-update behavior. This is enough to distinguish it from create_document_type, delete_document_type, and get_document_type, and from update_document, which targets documents rather than document types.

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?

The partial-update wording clearly implies the tool is for modifying an existing document type, and the 'only fields you pass are changed' guidance is useful. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as create_document_type for new types.

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