Api reference controls update

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered there; the description adds nothing about what a full update overwrites, whether unspecified fields are reset, permission requirements, or failure behavior. For an idempotent PUT-style replacement the 'unspecified fields are reset' nuance would be the single most valuable disclosure, and it is absent.

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, but the brevity comes from boilerplate rather than front-loaded information; nothing about the resource or action is prioritized.

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?

A mutation endpoint with no output schema and zero parameter documentation needs the description to carry the load, and this one leaves an agent unable to construct a valid body or know what happens on success. Only the annotations supply usable behavioral signal.

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%: 'id' is an undescribed string and 'body' is an unconstrained anyOf object with additionalProperties=true, so the payload shape is entirely opaque. The description does nothing to compensate — it does not name a single updatable field or point at the reference-control schema.

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 names the resource (reference controls) but the verbs 'viewed or edited' are boilerplate DRF phrasing that blurs what the endpoint actually does, and it does not distinguish this update tool from the sibling retrieve, partial_update, or create endpoints on the same resource. An agent reading only the description could mistake it for a read endpoint.

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, no mention of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as reference_controls_partial_update (for subset updates) or reference_controls_retrieve (for reading). The 'viewed or edited' wording gives no basis for choosing this tool over its siblings.

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