Api perimeters partial update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not explain that only supplied fields are merged, what happens to omitted fields, whether write permission on the perimeter is required, or what the response contains.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, so there is nothing to trim. However, brevity here comes from boilerplate rather than from front-loading useful information, so it is concise without being informative.

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 endpoint with a fully opaque free-form body, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, this description leaves an agent unable to construct a correct call. Everything the agent must know about the patch payload has to be guessed.

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% for both parameters, and the description compensates for none of it. The free-form 'body' object (anyOf object/null with additionalProperties allowed) is entirely undocumented, leaving the agent with no idea which perimeter fields are patchable or what format they take.

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 is generic Django-REST-Framework boilerplate ('API endpoint that allows perimeters to be viewed or edited') that never states the tool's actual operation, a partial update. It gives no basis for distinguishing this from siblings like perimeters_update, perimeters_retrieve, or perimeters_list, which the same boilerplate would fit equally well.

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 at all: nothing says whether to pick this versus perimeters_update (full replacement) or perimeters_retrieve (read). 'Viewed or edited' actually blurs the distinction rather than clarifying it, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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