app_event_video_clips_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 of behavioral disclosure. It conveys only that this is a PATCH with a request body; it says nothing about authentication/scopes, whether the update is partial or full replacement, side effects, or rate limits. Pointing at an external OpenAPI component is not behavioral disclosure.

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-loads the route, which is good. But the parenthetical '(PATCH /v1/appEventVideoClips/{id})' is a verbatim repeat of the preceding text, pure waste, and the remaining sentence is a pointer rather than substance.

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?

This is a mutation tool with a nested request body, no annotations, and no output schema. The description should explain what the update accepts and effects, but instead defers everything to an OpenAPI component that is not included, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke it correctly.

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%, so both parameters (id, body) are already documented in the schema, and this triggers the baseline of 3. The description's body note duplicates the schema's own 'Shape: components.schemas.AppEventVideoClipUpdateRequest' text rather than adding syntax, required fields, or format detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 an HTTP verb (PATCH) and a resource path (/v1/appEventVideoClips/{id}), so an agent can infer it updates an app event video clip. However, it never says in prose what the operation does, and the parenthetical merely repeats the same route, so it reads as raw route metadata rather than a stated purpose. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like app_event_video_clips_get_instance or app_event_video_clips_delete_instance beyond the verb.

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 when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as app_event_video_clips_create_instance or app_event_video_clips_get_instance. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and HTTP verb.

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