http_patch

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it mutates and may be destructive. The description adds a valuable behavioral note: it is not guaranteed idempotent and depends on server patch semantics, which is not in annotations. This adds context beyond the structured fields without contradicting them.

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 wasted words. The primary action and use case are front-loaded, and the idempotency warning is appended efficiently. Every sentence earns its place, and it is appropriately short for a simple HTTP tool.

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 generic HTTP tool with a rich schema and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, usage context, and a key caveat (idempotency). It does not describe response format or side effects beyond what annotations indicate, but given the simplicity and the presence of annotations, it is adequate. Could add a note about authentication but that is not essential.

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% with detailed descriptions for all 14 parameters. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage. No need to compensate for undocumented 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 clearly states the verb ('Perform an HTTP PATCH') and the resource (HTTP PATCH), and adds the distinguishing use case 'partial updates', which differentiates it from siblings like http_put (full updates) and http_post (create). It is specific and actionable, with no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly says 'Use for partial updates', providing a clear context for when to call it. It does not name alternatives explicitly, but the 'partial updates' phrasing implicitly contrasts with full-update (PUT) and create (POST) tools. It also adds an idempotency caveat that guides the agent on suitability. Lacks an explicit 'do not use when' but is sufficient for most cases.

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