panelica_subdomains_patch_v1_subdomains_id

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false, so the line 'Mutating: changes server state' mostly restates that fact. The description does add useful context beyond annotations by declaring the required domains:write scope and confirming the operation is state-changing. It does not describe specific side effects or reversibility, but this is reasonable given destructiveHint=false and the PATCH semantics.

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 compact and well-ordered: purpose first, followed by HTTP method, category, required scope, and mutation flag. Every line communicates something relevant, though 'Update subdomain' duplicates the title and 'Category: Subdomains' adds limited value. Overall, it is efficient without padding.

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 tool with a simple id parameter, the description plus annotations cover the core needs: what the tool does, which endpoint it calls, the required scope, and that it mutates server state. The main gaps are the lack of any subdomain field guidance for the request body and no indication of the response shape, since no output schema exists. This is adequate for tool selection but not fully self-contained for constructing a meaningful update payload.

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 of 3 applies even though the description adds little parameter-level detail. The HTTP path line confirms id is the path parameter, while the schema already documents body as the JSON payload. The body schema is explicitly opaque ('Schema not statically declared — see API docs'), and the description does not compensate with example fields or additional guidance about the body.

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 operation as 'Update subdomain' and maps it to HTTP PATCH /v1/subdomains/:id, so the verb and resource are unambiguous. It is categorized under Subdomains and is distinguishable from sibling get/delete subdomain tools by the PATCH verb, though it does not detail what aspects of a subdomain can be updated.

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 its usage: it is the mutating endpoint for updating an existing subdomain, and it notes the required domains:write scope. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with alternatives such as creating a subdomain via POST /v1/domains/:id/subdomains or deleting one via DELETE /v1/subdomains/:id, so the when-to-use guidance is only implicit.

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