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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail beyond that: omitted fields in the patch retain stored values, including secret headers, which tells the agent that a partial patch will not wipe secrets. It does not mention permission requirements or what the response returns.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the partial-update rule front-loaded before the secret-headers caveat. Nothing could be removed without losing 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?

For a mutation tool the annotations cover the safety profile and the description covers patch semantics, so the basics are present. However, with a nested open-ended `patch` object and no output schema, the definition leaves the agent without a field list or a description of the returned API representation — a meaningful gap for a write operation.

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 67%, but the two descriptions that exist are near-useless ('Slug' and 'Approved workspace id only.'). Critically, the `patch` parameter is a free-form object with additionalProperties=true and no field enumeration anywhere, so the agent cannot tell which fields are patchable. The description's note about omitted fields keeping stored values partly compensates but leaves the core parameter opaque.

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 — 'Change one of your published APIs' — which clearly separates it from create_user_api, delete_user_api, and list_user_apis. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of full differentiation, but the intent is 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. ownership, published status), and no reference to alternatives such as create_user_api or update_hosted_function. The only implied usage is that the API must already exist.

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