update_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'update' implying mutation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether updates are reversible, validation rules, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 brief and structured with a clear opening sentence followed by an 'Args:' section. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the parameter descriptions could be more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 an output schema (which reduces need to describe return values) but no annotations and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers basic purpose and parameters but lacks crucial context for a mutation tool, such as behavioral details and usage guidelines relative to siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameters and their types but adds minimal semantics beyond the schema—e.g., 'doctype' is described as 'ERPNext DocType name' and 'data' as 'JSON string of fields to update', which provides some context but doesn't explain format, examples, or constraints for the JSON string or document naming.

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 action ('Update') and resource ('an existing document'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'create_document' or 'submit_document', which are related document operations in the same system.

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 like 'create_document', 'submit_document', or 'cancel_document'. The description only states what it does without context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

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