app_infos_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, yet it discloses nothing: not whether the update is partial or full, what happens to omitted fields, permission requirements, idempotency, or side effects. Pointing at an OpenAPI schema reference does not constitute 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?

Very short, but wasteful: the path 'PATCH /v1/appInfos/{id}' is duplicated verbatim in parentheses, and the remaining clause defers entirely to an external schema rather than conveying information. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing substantive to front-load.

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-object body, zero annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate — an agent gets no idea what it can update, what the JSON:API envelope requires, or what the result looks like.

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 the JSON:API 'body'. The description only echoes the schema's own pointer to components.schemas.AppInfoUpdateRequest, adding no syntax, field list, or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 text 'PATCH /v1/appInfos/{id}' conveys only the HTTP verb and route, which restates the tool name rather than explaining what the update accomplishes or which AppInfo fields can be changed. It gives no differentiation from the many sibling update_instance tools (apps_update_instance, app_infos_get_instance, etc.).

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 alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., which id, what state the AppInfo must be in), and no exclusions. Nothing routes the agent among the dozens of app_infos_* siblings.

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