app_encryption_declaration_documents_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 behavioral burden, but it discloses only the HTTP method and a pointer to an external OpenAPI schema. It does not say what fields can be changed, whether the update is partial or full, what permissions are required, or what the response contains.

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 but wastes space by repeating the same endpoint twice and does not front-load a plain-language purpose. This is under-specification rather than useful concision; the duplicate path text does not earn 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?

For a mutation tool with a nested JSON:API body and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It defers the body envelope to OpenAPI but gives no indication of required fields, effects, or return behavior, leaving the agent unable to invoke it safely without external documentation.

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 schema already documents id and body. The description adds only a pointer to components.schemas.AppEncryptionDeclarationDocumentUpdateRequest, which the schema body description already repeats, so it does not add meaning beyond the schema.

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 an HTTP method and resource path, so an agent can infer that this updates an app encryption declaration document. However, it never states the purpose in plain language and does not distinguish the mutation from sibling create/get tools beyond the PATCH method.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison with app_encryption_declaration_documents_create_instance or app_encryption_declaration_documents_get_instance. The reader must infer from PATCH that this modifies an existing document rather than creating or reading one.

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