app_asset_library_videos_update_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses almost nothing: not whether the update is partial, which fields are mutable, what happens to omitted fields, or any auth/rate-limit constraints. The only behavioral hint is the PATCH verb and a pointer to an external JSON:API envelope schema that is not included in the definition.

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 text is short but contains a verbatim duplication: 'PATCH /v1/appAssetLibraryVideos/{id} (PATCH /v1/appAssetLibraryVideos/{id})'. That parenthetical is pure waste, and the whole description spends its budget restating the endpoint instead of describing the operation.

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 a nested JSON:API body, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It delegates all body semantics to an OpenAPI schema reference the agent may not have, and explains neither the effect of the update nor what a successful response returns.

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, so the baseline is 3. The description merely echoes the schema by naming the request schema for the body and adds no field-level meaning beyond it.

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 gives a method and URL (PATCH /v1/appAssetLibraryVideos/{id}), so the resource and mutating verb are inferable. However, it never states in plain language that it updates an existing app asset library video, and it does nothing to separate itself from the sibling create/get/delete variants. It is essentially the operation ID restated as an endpoint.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus create_instance, get_instance, or delete_instance. The PATCH verb weakly implies modification, but no conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are given, leaving the agent to infer everything from the name.

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