accessibility_declarations_update_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses nothing about authorization requirements, whether the update is partial or full, what happens to fields not supplied, or any side effects. The only implicit behavioral hint is the PATCH verb, which signals a partial update, but that is not stated and is already implied by the route.

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?

It is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the parenthetical '(PATCH /v1/accessibilityDeclarations/{id})' duplicates the text immediately preceding it and earns no place. The remaining content is a single useful pointer to the body schema.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a nested JSON:API envelope body, the description is not complete enough: it does not enumerate updatable fields, note auth/permission needs, or explain the envelope structure beyond a schema name the agent cannot resolve. An agent has little to act on beyond the required parameters.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (id, body) are documented in the schema. The description merely references components.schemas.AccessibilityDeclarationUpdateRequest, which the schema description already points to, so it adds essentially no new meaning. Baseline 3 for full schema coverage applies.

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 is essentially the operation ID restated as an HTTP route: 'PATCH /v1/accessibilityDeclarations/{id}'. It never says in plain language that it updates an existing accessibility declaration, and it does nothing to differentiate itself from its four siblings (accessibility_declarations_create_instance, get_instance, delete_instance). It is marginally more than the name because it names the HTTP verb, but that is decodable from the name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus create_instance, get_instance, or delete_instance, nor any prerequisite or ordering information. The rubric assigns 2 for 'no guidance,' and the description contains none.

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