Update an API entry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the partial-update behavior (only provided fields change) and enumerates the allowed fields, which goes beyond a simple 'update' statement. However, it does not mention return values, idempotency, or side effects.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the core action 'Partial update' and immediately listing the relevant fields. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the response and any important behaviors. It does not mention what is returned, how success/failure is indicated, or the role of the 'slug' parameter. The nested patch object is only minimally 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 only 33% (id has a description, slug and patch do not). The description lists the patchable fields (label, description, metadata, start, end), but these are already present in the schema. It adds no meaning for 'start', 'end', 'slug', or 'metadata', leaving gaps that the description should compensate for.

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 'Partial update of an API' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the patchable fields. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_node and update_bug.

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 usage for modifying existing APIs, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or mention any exclusions. The 'partial update' wording gives some context but no direct comparison with siblings.

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