app_custom_product_pages_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 beyond the HTTP verb: not whether the update is partial or full replacement, what permissions/roles are required, whether the change is reversible or submitted for review, nor any rate-limit or conflict behavior. For a mutation tool this is a serious gap.

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 and front-loads the endpoint, but it wastes the parenthetical by repeating the identical PATCH path verbatim, and the OpenAPI pointer is dense jargon that assumes the agent can resolve component references.

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 destructive-by-default mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and an untyped body, the definition should say more about what is being changed and the required envelope. The OpenAPI pointer is the only substantive content, leaving the agent without the behavioral context needed to invoke this safely.

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 there are only two parameters, but the body is typed as a bare object with additionalProperties: {}, so the schema itself is opaque. The description adds genuine value by pointing to components.schemas.AppCustomProductPageUpdateRequest for the JSON:API envelope, which is the only guidance available on body shape.

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 conveys a mutation of a specific resource via the PATCH path (appCustomProductPages/{id}), so the verb+resource is inferable. However it leans on the raw HTTP path rather than stating plainly that it updates a custom product page, and it does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like app_custom_product_pages_get_instance, app_custom_product_pages_delete_instance, or app_custom_product_page_versions_update_instance.

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 use this tool versus the create/get/delete siblings, no prerequisites, and no indication of what conditions must hold to issue the PATCH. The agent is left to infer everything from the HTTP method.

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