Update document header

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only implies mutation ('Update') but does not reveal idempotency, required permissions, effects on related data, or validation behavior. This leaves significant uncertainty for safe invocation.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded. It is not verbose, but it may be overly brief given the tool's complexity. Additional structured information (e.g., bullet points) would improve readability without adding length.

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?

Despite the tool having 5 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema or annotations, the description provides minimal contextual information. It does not explain how 'changes' is used, what 'common header fields' entail, or what the return value indicates. This is insufficient for a mutation tool of this complexity.

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%, yet the description adds almost no parameter context. It vaguely mentions 'common header fields' but does not enumerate allowed fields or explain the 'kind' enum, 'changes' object format, or purpose of 'id' and 'company'/'profile'. The flexible 'changes' parameter is particularly underdocumented.

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 uses a specific verb ('Update') and resource ('common header fields on one accounting document'), clearly stating what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'update_document_items' or 'post_document', missing an opportunity to distinguish its scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it. With many sibling tools, explicit usage guidelines are lacking.

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