background_assets_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. PATCH implies a partial mutation, which is the only behavioral signal present. Nothing is said about required auth/roles, whether fields are merged or replaced, side effects, or destructive scope.

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 the path is duplicated verbatim in parentheses and the only remaining content is a pointer to an external OpenAPI schema. Every sentence defers rather than informing, so brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient front-loading.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what the JSON:API envelope requires. Instead it punts entirely to components.schemas.BackgroundAssetUpdateRequest, leaving the agent with no actionable body guidance.

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 the body schema itself points at BackgroundAssetUpdateRequest. The description repeats that same pointer without adding format, required-field, or envelope detail, so the 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 description names an HTTP verb and resource path (PATCH /v1/backgroundAssets/{id}), which at least identifies an update operation on a background asset. However it never says in plain language what is being updated or what a background asset is, and it does not distinguish this from siblings like background_assets_create_instance, background_asset_upload_files_update_instance, or background_assets_get_instance. It is a raw endpoint reference rather than a stated 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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance of any kind. With dozens of background asset and update-instance siblings, an agent gets zero help deciding when this tool applies instead of the create, upload-file, or version variants.

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