patch_w_company_agent_discoverysettings_mapping

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only reports the HTTP method and argument locations. It does not disclose auth requirements, partial-vs-full update semantics, idempotency, side effects, or what happens to the existing mapping.

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 three short sentences with the action and endpoint front-loaded. It is lean, though 'any required request headers' and 'Provide the request payload in body' add little beyond the parameter names.

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 PATCH operation with no annotations and a bare schema, the description leaves too much unknown: the request body shape, which IDs/path params are valid, expected filters, and mutation behavior. The presence of an output schema helps with response understanding but not with constructing the call.

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% and all params are generic open objects, so the description must compensate. It adds only broad roles (route IDs, filters/pagination, headers, payload) without naming any actual keys, formats, or examples, and 'route IDs' is ambiguous against a fixed endpoint.

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 explicitly says 'Update agent discoverysetting mapping' and gives the exact endpoint 'PATCH /w/company/agent_discoverysettings_mapping', so the operation and target resource are clear. It does not go further to explain what a discoverysettings mapping is or differentiate itself from sibling patch tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives; the description only gives mechanical placement instructions ('Provide route IDs in path_params...'). It never says to prefer this PATCH tool for updating an existing mapping rather than the POST/GET/DELETE siblings.

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