Update package

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: omitted limits are preserved (partial update, consistent with idempotentHint), the call requires a reseller account, and failures surface as 403. The environment gating on MXROUTE_USERNAME is unusual context an agent could not infer.

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 sentences, no filler. The core action and the partial-update contract come first, and the account/environment caveats follow. Every clause carries 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 with no output schema, it covers semantics, auth gating, and error behavior. It does not say what the response contains or what happens if the package name does not exist, but those are minor gaps given the otherwise thorough treatment.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema cannot express: at least one limit must be supplied, and unspecified limits are left untouched rather than reset. That is directly relevant to how the agent fills the five optional limit parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: "Changes a package's limits." That cleanly separates it from create_package/delete_package/list_packages, though it never names a sibling explicitly. An agent knows what the tool mutates without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit prerequisites and exclusions: reseller accounts only, regular accounts refused with 403, and unavailable while MXROUTE_USERNAME is in `reseller|user` form. It also states the partial-update rule (at least one limit required). It stops short of pointing to an alternative tool, but the when/when-not coverage is strong.

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