beta_groups_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 only implies a partial mutation via 'PATCH'. It says nothing about permissions, whether omitted fields are preserved, reversibility, or side effects. The only added value is pointing at the request body schema.

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 and front-loads the endpoint, but the duplicated '(PATCH /v1/betaGroups/{id})' parenthetical and the redundant body-shape reference waste the few tokens present without adding information.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate: it does not describe updatable fields, auth requirements, or result behavior. Delegating everything to an external OpenAPI reference leaves the agent without enough to call the tool confidently.

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 coverage is 100%, so both id and body are already documented in the input schema. The description merely repeats the body-shape reference already present in the schema description, adding no new parameter meaning. 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 restates the operation as 'PATCH /v1/betaGroups/{id}', which is essentially the tool name (beta_groups_update_instance) rendered as an HTTP path. It confirms the resource and method but adds no semantic explanation of what beta group update entails. This is close to tautology.

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 and no mention of alternatives such as beta_groups_get_instance, beta_groups_create_instance, or beta_groups_delete_instance. The agent is left to infer the operation's place among siblings entirely.

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