Update a Kong entity

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly discloses that the tool performs partial updates (PATCH) and changes only fields in `data`. It does not cover side effects, permissions, or error behavior, but the core behavior is adequately stated.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the HTTP method and key behavior. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should hint at return values; it does not. It also lacks error handling or prerequisites. However, for a simple update tool with 4 well-documented params, the core functionality is covered.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that only fields in `data` are changed, which is implicit from PATCH but reinforces intent. No parameter-specific enrichment is provided.

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 clearly states the tool performs a partial update using PATCH, specifying the resource pattern and noting that only supplied fields change. It is specific enough to distinguish from create (full entity creation) and upsert, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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?

The description implies use for partial updates by explaining the PATCH semantics, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like kong_create or kong_upsert, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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