Coda Update Doc

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered structurally. The idempotency sentence largely restates the annotation, and the description adds only the metadata-vs-content scope and that it returns updated metadata, without new behavioral traits like auth requirements.

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?

Front-loads the core action and stays short and readable, with the alternative-routing and idempotency noted after. The idempotency sentence duplicates the annotation and is the one element that does not fully earn its place.

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?

With a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to frame scope and routing, which it does. It is complete enough to invoke correctly, missing only peripheral details such as permission requirements.

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 100%, so title, doc_id, and icon_name are already documented in the schema. The description restates 'title and/or icon' at a high level but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update metadata for an existing Coda doc') and narrows scope to title and/or icon. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling coda_update_page by declaring it does NOT touch page content, so an agent can separate it from the other update tools without reading schemas.

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?

Names the alternative (coda_update_page) and the condition that routes to it ('does NOT update page content'), which is the key selection decision among the many siblings. It lacks broader when-to-use framing (e.g. prerequisites or permissions), so it stops short of a 5.

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