update_target_list

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent, and the description adds precise behavioral context: only supplied fields are sent, and targets is a complete replacement, not a merge. This meaningfully clarifies what gets overwritten and prevents an incorrect mental model of additive target updates.

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 with no filler. The endpoint and operation are front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers the most important behavioral nuance without unnecessary detail.

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 destructive potential and no output schema, the description covers the critical invocation semantics: PATCH behavior, partial field sending, and full target-list replacement. It does not mention the response body or failure cases, but these are not essential for correctly calling the tool.

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. The description adds value beyond the schema by clarifying the targets parameter's full-replacement semantics and the general partial-update behavior, which are not visible from parameter descriptions alone.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing target list (PATCH /v2/target-lists/{id})'. It conveys this is a modification operation on a single existing list, but it does not explicitly contrast it with create_target_list, delete_target_list, or get_specific_target_list.

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 strong usage guidance by explaining PATCH semantics: 'Only the fields given are sent' and that targets, when provided, replaces the full list rather than merging. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over create/delete/search alternatives, but it provides clear context for correct invocation.

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