background_asset_upload_files_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 about the mutation: which fields are updatable, required permissions, whether the change is reversible, or idempotency. For a PATCH operation with a nested JSON:API body, this is a severe 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 definition is short but wasteful: the endpoint path is literally duplicated inside parentheses, which adds zero information. The single useful clause is the pointer to the body schema, buried after the redundant repetition.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a nested object body, yet the description explains none of the update semantics or permissions and simply defers to an external OpenAPI document. Pointing at the schema is the only thing that keeps this from a 1.

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 both parameters (id, body) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's reference to the BackgroundAssetUploadFileUpdateRequest schema and 'JSON:API envelope' slightly reinforces the body shape but largely repeats what the schema already states.

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 is essentially a machine-generated restatement of the tool name as an HTTP endpoint: 'PATCH /v1/backgroundAssetUploadFiles/{id}'. The verb (update) and resource (background asset upload files) are already encoded in the name, and the text adds no natural-language statement of what updating an upload file actually accomplishes. It is close to a tautology with a doc pointer.

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 mention of alternatives or sibling tools. The pointer to the OpenAPI schema is documentation routing, not usage guidance, so the agent gets nothing to help it decide whether to call this tool.

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