keyso_patch_ai_tracker_id

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the partial-update behavior ('update only what you passed') and provides the HTTP method and path, which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, what happens to omitted fields, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool without annotations, this is insufficient disclosure.

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 short and efficient, front-loading the purpose, then method/path, then the key behavioral note. The example URL is somewhat redundant with the path but reinforces usage. No filler sentences. It could be improved by removing the redundant path line, but it remains concise and structured.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify the response format, error codes, or the set of fields that can be updated in the body. Since the body is an open JSON object with no properties defined, the agent cannot infer what keys are valid without external knowledge. The tool is complex enough (PATCH on a resource) that more guidance is needed.

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?

All four parameters have descriptions in the schema (id, body, token, base_url), and schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the partial-update meaning for the body parameter, which is valuable since the body is an open object with no defined properties. However, it does not enumerate allowed fields or provide examples of valid body content, so the agent still lacks concrete guidance on what to put in 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 states the tool updates AI tracker project data ('обновление данных проекта') and specifies the HTTP method and path. While it doesn't explicitly name the sibling alternative (e.g., keyso_patch_monitoring_id), the tool name and path make the resource clear. It conveys a specific verb and resource, though it could more sharply differentiate from other patch tools.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for partial updates (PATCH) as opposed to full replacement (PUT) or creation (POST), nor does it reference sibling tools like keyso_post_ai_tracker or keyso_patch_monitoring_id. The only usage hint is 'Обновляем только то, что передали' (only update what is passed), which is more about body semantics than selection criteria.

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