update_document

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the Tiptap JSON requirement, but this is redundant with the schema's parameter description. It fails to mention side effects, permissions, error behavior, or whether content is replaced or merged. No added behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 two short sentences: 'Update a document's title and/or content. Content must be in Tiptap JSON format.' It is front-loaded with the action, no redundant words, and all information is relevant.

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's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description covers the core action and the format constraint. However, it lacks guidance on error conditions (e.g., non-existent document), permissions, and response shape. No output schema exists, so the description should have addressed these, making it slightly incomplete.

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% and each parameter (documentId, title, content) is already well-described in the schema. The description adds minimal value by indicating 'title and/or content,' but this is also inferable from optional parameters. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Update a document's title and/or content.' It uses a specific verb (update), resource (document), and specifies the fields affected. It distinguishes itself from sibling read/search tools by focusing on modification.

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 conveys clear usage context: use this tool when you need to change a document's title or content. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the verb and siblings make it evident this is for updates, not reads. The 'and/or' clarifies that at least one field can be provided.

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