basecamp_update_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Update an existing document' without revealing whether the operation is partial or full, what the response includes, whether it requires specific permissions, or if it is reversible. For a mutation tool, this lack of context is a notable gap.

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?

The description is a single short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It omits crucial information about parameters and behavior, so the brevity is not effective. It does not earn its place because the sentence lacks substance needed for correct usage.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain required parameters (project_id, document_id), the effect of optional ones (title, content), or any return behavior. A more complete description would outline these to guide the agent.

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 0% (no parameter descriptions in the schema), and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. The tool description does not even mention the parameters (title, content, project_id, document_id) or explain their roles. Since the description must compensate for low schema coverage and fails to do so, this dimension scores poorly.

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 'Update an existing document' uses a specific verb and resource, making it clear that this tool modifies an existing document. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many other update tools (e.g., update_project, update_card) beyond the resource name, nor does it clarify what 'document' refers to exactly. This is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or alternative tools for different scenarios (e.g., creating a new document with create_document). There is no explicit or implied usage context beyond the action itself.

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