coda_update_doc

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context by confirming idempotency and clarifying what the tool does not affect (page content). This complements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 concise with four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating general action, specifying updated fields, excluding page content with sibling reference, and noting idempotency. No redundant or unnecessary information.

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 3 params, full schema coverage, output schema, and good annotations, the description covers key aspects: what it updates, what it doesn't, and idempotency. It lacks error conditions or prerequisites, but overall is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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%, so the schema already describes the parameters. The description mentions 'title and/or icon' matching the parameters, but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since schema does the heavy lifting, baseline 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 'Update metadata for an existing Coda doc' and specifies what is updated (title and/or icon). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating 'Does NOT update page content — use coda_update_page for that', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for updating doc title/icon) and when not to (for page content, use coda_update_page). It also mentions idempotency, which informs usage. However, it does not elaborate on prerequisites or context beyond that.

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