app_events_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 and largely fails it. It does convey that this is a PATCH (a partial mutation) on an existing resource, but says nothing about required permissions, whether the update is partial or full-replace, side effects, or reversibility. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant 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 description is short but wastes space: the path is written twice, once bare and once in parentheses, which is pure duplication. It is also not front-loaded with any human-readable purpose, leading instead with a raw HTTP route. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than tight writing.

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 body object, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description defers all substance to an external OpenAPI component that the agent may not have access to. Nothing about required permissions, the shape of the update envelope, or expected response is conveyed, leaving the definition inadequate for its complexity.

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 the schema already documents both id and body, and the baseline is 3. The description's only parameter content is a pointer to 'components.schemas.AppEventUpdateRequest', which is the same external reference the schema's body description already gives, so it adds no new meaning about the JSON:API envelope's fields.

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 verb and resource path (PATCH /v1/appEvents/{id}), so an agent can infer this updates an existing app event. However it never states in human terms what an 'app event' update does or which fields it can change, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as app_events_create_instance or app_event_localizations_update_instance beyond the verb. Vague-but-inferable purpose.

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?

No when-to-use guidance at all. There is no statement of prerequisites, no mention of when to prefer this over app_events_create_instance or app_events_delete_instance, and no indication of what conditions must hold for an update to succeed. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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